Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- A.A.A (1)
- Air Pollution Control Board (1)
- Annexation (1)
- Appeal Determinants (1)
- Consumer protection (1)
-
- Consumerism (1)
- Contiguous Territory (1)
- Disqualification for Bias (1)
- Environmental Management Board (1)
- Environmental protection (1)
- Federal regulations (1)
- Indiana Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act (1)
- Indiana administrative boards (1)
- Indiana in Prespective (1)
- Jurisdictional Attack in Indiana (1)
- Municipal corporations (1)
- Partiality (1)
- Prejudgment (1)
- Product safety (1)
- Reafsnyder v. City of Warsaw (1)
- Regulatory commissions (1)
- State regulations (1)
- Stream Pollution Control Board (1)
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v City of Bloomington (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Disqualification For Bias- Indiana In Prespective, John Philip Updike
Disqualification For Bias- Indiana In Prespective, John Philip Updike
IUSTITIA
In 1943, the Indiana Legislature created a Stream Pollution Control Board;' in 1961, it created an Air Pollution Control Board; and then in 1972, the Legislature created an Environmental Management Board to coordinate and facilitate the efforts of the air and stream boards. The concern within the State Legislature for the environment reaches back more than two decades, and it would appear that the policy of the State is to become progressively more active in this area. However, the effectiveness of State programs to protect the Hoosier environment is necessarily dependent upon the dedication of those persons sitting on the …
Annexation And The Jurisdictional Attack In Indiana: The City Comes To Visit, George T. Mcnaughton
Annexation And The Jurisdictional Attack In Indiana: The City Comes To Visit, George T. Mcnaughton
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
State Consumer Protection In A Federal System, Robert M. O'Neil
State Consumer Protection In A Federal System, Robert M. O'Neil
Articles by Maurer Faculty
Increasing interest in consumerism has brought intensified efforts at every level of government to protect the consumer. While federal regulation seems desirable for nationally marketed products and interstate activities, the states retain the duty to protect the health and safety of their citizens. Where state regulation is more restrictive than concurrent federal regulation, however, the constitutional issue of preemption arises.
This Article analyzes the factors which have influenced the courts in resolving conflicts between federal and state regulation in the consumer field. Emphasizing the need for concurrent regulation, the author formulates guidelines by which the courts can examine the purposes …