Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 22 of 22
Full-Text Articles in Law
Appeal No. 0194: Wood And Locker, Inc. V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0194: Wood And Locker, Inc. V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 86-214
Appeal No. 0211: Sandbar Investments, Inc. V. Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0211: Sandbar Investments, Inc. V. Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 86-299
Appeal No. 0179: Mrs. Edna May Mott V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0179: Mrs. Edna May Mott V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 86-93
Appeal No. 0170: Mr. Daryl Rasmussen V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0170: Mr. Daryl Rasmussen V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 86-87
Appeal No. 0192: Superior Petroleum Services V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0192: Superior Petroleum Services V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Review of Chief's Order 86-215
Appeal No. 0188: Trident Marketing Group Corp. V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0188: Trident Marketing Group Corp. V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Review of Chief's Order 86-204
Appeal No. 0190: Mr. Daryl Rasmussen V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0190: Mr. Daryl Rasmussen V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 86-204
Appeal No. 0186: Lightning Enterprises V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0186: Lightning Enterprises V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Review of Chief's Order 86-186
Appeal No. 0162: Mr. Gordon N. Arney, Mr. & Mrs. William Barnes, Mr. Paul Gonter, Mr. Paul T. Gonter, Mr. David Kridler, Mr. & Mrs. Leo Smart, Ms. Celia A. Thomas V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0162: Mr. Gordon N. Arney, Mr. & Mrs. William Barnes, Mr. Paul Gonter, Mr. Paul T. Gonter, Mr. David Kridler, Mr. & Mrs. Leo Smart, Ms. Celia A. Thomas V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 85-100
Appeal No. 0166: Mr. And Mrs. Carl J. Bogar V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0166: Mr. And Mrs. Carl J. Bogar V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Shongum Oil and Gas, Inc Permits Nos. 4331, 4332, and 4433
Appeal No. 0165: Mr. Robert R. Gardner V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0165: Mr. Robert R. Gardner V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 86-01
Appeal No. 0144: Mr. David L. Eisenbraun V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0144: Mr. David L. Eisenbraun V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 85-94
Appeal No. 0152: Gem Energy Corporation V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0152: Gem Energy Corporation V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil Ad Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 85-82
Appeal No. 0143: X-Alpha International, Ltd. V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Appeal No. 0143: X-Alpha International, Ltd. V. Renee J. Houser, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 85-77
The Law Of Confessions: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli
The Law Of Confessions: Part I, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Insanity And Related Issues, Paul C. Giannelli
Insanity And Related Issues, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Law Of Confessions: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli
The Law Of Confessions: Part Ii, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Sweatt V. Painter, The End Of Segregation, And The Transformation Of Education Law, Jonathan L. Entin
Sweatt V. Painter, The End Of Segregation, And The Transformation Of Education Law, Jonathan L. Entin
Faculty Publications
This Article will analyze these aspects of the Sweatt case. Part I describes the facts leading to the litigation. Part II examines the Supreme Court precedents facing Sweatt's attorneys, both in the area of school segregation and in the field of education generally. This section concludes that the Court at best seemed pre- pared only to enforce the Plessy doctrine, and none too rigorously at that. Part III focuses upon the process of making the record at the trial. This section demonstrates how Sweatt's counsel took advantage of ambiguities in the prior cases to lead the Curt to address the …
Dual Class Capitalization: A Reply To Professor Seligman, George W. Dent
Dual Class Capitalization: A Reply To Professor Seligman, George W. Dent
Faculty Publications
Professor Joel Seligman's article, Equal Protection in Share- holder Voting Rights: The One Common Share, One Vote Contro- versy,' is an impressive accomplishment in many respects. It confirms his status as premier historian of our securities laws and markets.2 It also provides a powerful analysis of, and the first se- rious argument against, dual class capitalization, and proposes a thoughtful solution to the problems it raises. Despite these formi- dable assets, some of Professor Seligman's conclusions are debata- ble. First, Professor Seligman argues that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can impose on the National Associa- tion of Securities Dealers …
A Comment On The Supposed Paradoxes Of A Mathematical Interpretation Of The Logic Of Trials, Dale A. Nance
A Comment On The Supposed Paradoxes Of A Mathematical Interpretation Of The Logic Of Trials, Dale A. Nance
Faculty Publications
This symposium has renewed discussion of the apparent paradox of at- tempting to apply mathematical probabilities to the logic of trials. Brought to academic attention by the stimulating work of L. Jonathan Cohen,' the debate reflects a more general controversy over the virtues of quantifying legal decisionmaking. In this brief comment I do not intend to take sides either in this debate or in the more general controversy. I want only to draw attention to a weakness in the legal interpretations which underlie much of the debate.
Unprofitable Mergers: Toward A Market-Based Legal Response, George W. Dent
Unprofitable Mergers: Toward A Market-Based Legal Response, George W. Dent
Faculty Publications
The reams of commentary on corporate mergers, acquisitions, and tender offers have focused largely on protection of shareholders of acquired (or target) companies from both the depredations of acquiring (or raider) companies and the cupidity of their own managements in either negotiating the terms or obstructing the accomplishment of transactions. Virtually no attention has been paid to the plight of shareholders of acquiring companies devastated by unwise acquisitions. This oversight is surprising: some acquisitions have been spectacular disasters, destroying hundreds of millions of dollars in the value of the acquiring company's stock.1 Nor are these isolated cases: on average, acquisitions …
Bite Mark Evidence, Paul C. Giannelli