Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Albernaz v. United States (1)
- Blockburger v. United States (1)
- Blythe v. Commonwealth (1)
- California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum (1)
- City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co (1)
-
- Clayton Act (1)
- Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder (1)
- Ex parte Lange (1)
- Federal Trade Commission Act (1)
- Harrison v. Commonwealth (1)
- Holly's Case (1)
- Hybud Equipment Corp. v. City of Akron (1)
- Jones v. Commonwealth (1)
- Martin v. Commonwealth (1)
- Mason City Center Associates v. City of Mason City Iowa (1)
- National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States (1)
- Parker v. Brown (1)
- Pueblo Aircraft Services Inc. v. City of Pueblo (1)
- Robinson-Patman Act (1)
- Sherman Act (1)
- Simpson v. Commonwealth (1)
- Turner v. Commonwealth (1)
- Whalen v. United States (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Immunity Of Local Governments And Their Officials From Antitrust Claims After City Of Boulder, J. Robert Brame Iii, Howard Feller
The Immunity Of Local Governments And Their Officials From Antitrust Claims After City Of Boulder, J. Robert Brame Iii, Howard Feller
University of Richmond Law Review
On January 13, 1982, the United States Supreme Court rendered an opinion against the City of Boulder, Colorado, which expanded the potential liability of local governmental entities and their officials to claims under the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court essentially held that a municipality cannot obtain immunity from antitrust claims unless it satisfies a stringent test. Due to the broad language of the opinion, virtually every activity in which a local governmental entity engages, including the traditional activities of zoning, licensing, franchising, purchasing and operating public utilities, has become subject to antitrust challenges that may require a trial on …
Double Jeopardy And The Virginia Supreme Court: Three Approaches To Multiple Punishment, Jane S. Glenn
Double Jeopardy And The Virginia Supreme Court: Three Approaches To Multiple Punishment, Jane S. Glenn
University of Richmond Law Review
The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution affords three primary protections. First, the clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. Secondly, it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Thirdly, the clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishment for a single offense. Although the double jeopardy principle has roots in antiquity, it may be one of our least understood constitutional protections. This comment will focus on the third protection of double jeopardy as it has been developed by the United States Supreme Court and recently …