Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reply Brief. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4419, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Reply Brief. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4419, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellant, James Townsend V. Midland Funding, Llc, Stuart Robert Cohen, Peter A. Holland
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellant, James Townsend V. Midland Funding, Llc, Stuart Robert Cohen, Peter A. Holland
Court Briefs
The Consumer Protection Clinic of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, filed a Motion to Participate and an Amicus Brief in the case of Townsend v. Midland Funding, LLC. The case presents the question of whether documents created by third party predecessors in interest—usually a bank—may be admitted into evidence when a debt buyer plaintiff does not demonstrate personal knowledge regarding any of the foundational elements which would be required to admit the documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Amici urge the Court to overturn the lower court, and hold that a …
Amicus Curiae Brief Of Law Professors On Issue Of Exhaustion In Support Of Petitioners. Epa V. Eme Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014) (Nos. 12-1182, 12-1183), Amy J. Wildermuth, Sanne H. Knudsen
Amicus Curiae Brief Of Law Professors On Issue Of Exhaustion In Support Of Petitioners. Epa V. Eme Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014) (Nos. 12-1182, 12-1183), Amy J. Wildermuth, Sanne H. Knudsen
Court Briefs
Amici Curiae are law professors who research, teach, and write on federal environmental and administrative law. They are concerned in this case by the majority's conclusion below that issues related to the interpretation of ambiguous statutory language could be reached even though they were never raised during the rulemaking process. This conclusion is contrary to the clear language of the issue exhaustion requirement articulated in Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act and contrary to the proper role of reviewing courts under Chevron. As a result, it could have far-reaching impacts for a wide array of administrative cases and …
Reply Brief. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3416, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern
Reply Brief. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3416, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Respondent. Madigan V. Levin, 571 U.S. 1 (2013) (No. 12-872), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3187, Eric Schnapper, Harvey Levin, Edward Theobald
Brief For Respondent. Madigan V. Levin, 571 U.S. 1 (2013) (No. 12-872), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3187, Eric Schnapper, Harvey Levin, Edward Theobald
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Petitioners. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3164, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Brief For Petitioners. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3164, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Petitioners. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2320, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern
Brief For Petitioners. Sandifer V. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2320, Eric Schnapper, Aaron B. Maduff, Michael L. Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Robert F. Childs, Jr., Abby Morrow Richardson, David L. Kern
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Respondent. Oxford Health Plans Llc V. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013) (No. 12-135), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 946, Eric Schnapper, Eric D. Katz
Brief For Respondent. Oxford Health Plans Llc V. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013) (No. 12-135), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 946, Eric Schnapper, Eric D. Katz
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED Did the arbitrator "exceed[] [his] powers," within the meaning of section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act, when he concluded that the arbitration paragraph agreed to by the parties authorized class arbitration?