Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Uniform Commercial Code (2)
- Virginia Code (2)
- Adams v. Cowan (1)
- Allied Productions v. Duesterdick (1)
- Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp (1)
-
- Burdette v. Burlington Industries (1)
- Cain v. Rea (1)
- Carr v. Union Church of Hopewell (1)
- Catlett v. Hawthorne (1)
- Cities Service Co. v. Florida (1)
- Civil Rights Acts (1)
- Cramer v. Commonwealth (1)
- DES (1)
- Dean Muse (1)
- EERA (1)
- Environmental Emergency Response Act (1)
- FECA (1)
- FELA (1)
- Federal Employees Compensation Act (1)
- Federal Employees Liability Act (1)
- Federal Tort Claims Act (1)
- Fitzgerald v. Doggett's Executor (1)
- Forsberg v. Zehm (1)
- Glenn v. Haynes (1)
- Goodstein v. Allen (1)
- Goodstein v. Weinberg (1)
- Hall v. Du Pont (1)
- Hawthorne v. Austin Organ Co. (1)
- Langdon and Alpha Business Services Inc. v. Hunt (1)
- Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Virginia Laws Affecting Churches - Restated, J. Rodney Johnson
Virginia Laws Affecting Churches - Restated, J. Rodney Johnson
University of Richmond Law Review
Twenty-five years ago, the late William T. Muse, then Dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, observed that although there was considerable law in Virginia relating to churches this law was widely scattered throughout the statutes and the cases. To remedy this state of affairs, Dean Muse wrote a concise but complete summary of these laws. In the quarter-century that has elapsed since Dean Muse's article was published, Virginia has adopted a new constitution, many church-related statutes have been enacted and a number of church-related cases have been decided, some of which have refined established principles and others …
Toxic Substances Litigation In The Fourth Circuit, Francis E. Mcgovern
Toxic Substances Litigation In The Fourth Circuit, Francis E. Mcgovern
University of Richmond Law Review
Personal injuries caused by toxic substances have generated problems of major concern to our social, political and legal systems. Reports in the news media concerning harm caused by toxic substances and expressions of public awareness of potential dangers associated with exposure to toxic substances are commonplace. Legislatures, administrative agencies and courts at both federal and state levels have begun to devote substantial energy to addressing issues raised by exposure to toxic Substances. Scientific, industrial, financial, and legal communities are seeking to deal with these problems from a number of different perspectives. Just as terms such as "Love Canal" and "asbestosis" …
Toxic Torts - Is Strict Liability Really The "Fair And Just" Way To Compensate The Victims?, Dennis R. Honabach
Toxic Torts - Is Strict Liability Really The "Fair And Just" Way To Compensate The Victims?, Dennis R. Honabach
University of Richmond Law Review
The EERA, as proposed, would have declared the manufacture, use, transportation, treatment, storage, and release of hazardous substances to be ultrahazardous activities. It would have imposed joint, several and strict liability on the generator as well as the transporter or disposer of hazardous substances unless the discharge, release or disposal in question was caused solely by an act of God or act of war.
Products Liability And The Virginia Statute Of Limitations - A Call For The Legislative Rescue Squad, Robert I. Stevenson
Products Liability And The Virginia Statute Of Limitations - A Call For The Legislative Rescue Squad, Robert I. Stevenson
University of Richmond Law Review
In recent years a flood of federally-funded scientific break-throughs have on almost a weekly basis established that some form of cancer or other dreaded disease is "caused" by exposure to a man-made product often not previously suspected of having a toxic tendency. Persons so afflicted then seek recovery from the product manufacturer. Their basis in tort is either for negligence in producing so harmful (and thus defective) a product, or for having failed to warn of the danger, or for "strict liability" within Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Where, as in Virginia, there is uncertainty as to …
Legal Malpractice In Virginia: Tort Or Contract?, R. Paul Childress Jr.
Legal Malpractice In Virginia: Tort Or Contract?, R. Paul Childress Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
A client who attempts to recover from an attorney does so because the client feels that the attorney has acted negligently. The concepts of standard of care, negligence, and damages are usually associated with actions in tort. However, while an examination of applicable Virginia law reveals that concepts usually associated with tort apply to legal malpractice, the presence of elements of negligence does not always equal tort.