Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- Virginia (2)
- 9/11 (1)
- Action (1)
- Affirmative (1)
-
- Afghanistan (1)
- Al-Qaeda (1)
- Alien (1)
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson (1)
- Appeals (1)
- Ashcroft (1)
- Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. (1)
- Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera Industrial Y Commercial v. International Standard Electric Corp (1)
- Burke County Public Schools Board of Education v. Shaver Partnership (1)
- CIA (1)
- Causation (1)
- Cause (1)
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Commerce clause (1)
- Death (1)
- Detainee (1)
- Dormant commerce clause (1)
- EPA (1)
- Education (1)
- Egypt (1)
- Environment (1)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1)
- Extraordinary (1)
- FAA (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Almond Beverage, Oat Water, And Soaked Soybean Juice: How The Dairy Pride Act Attempts To Remedy Consumer Confusion About Plant-Based Milks, Michelle E. Hoffer
Almond Beverage, Oat Water, And Soaked Soybean Juice: How The Dairy Pride Act Attempts To Remedy Consumer Confusion About Plant-Based Milks, Michelle E. Hoffer
University of Richmond Law Review
With sales of plant-based milks, such as almond and soy milk, on the rise and dairy industry sales declining, dairy industry supporters are taking issue with plant-based milk products calling themselves “milk.”10 In an effort to combat the “mislabeling” of non-dairy products, a few Senators banded together in an attempt to save the dairy industry by creating the DAIRY PRIDE Act.11 The Act was introduced in an effort to prohibit plant-based milk producers from using the term “milk” on their products and instead use a less misleading name, such as “almond imitation milk” or “soy beverage.”12 This Comment argues that, …
Clarence Thomas, Fisher V. University Of Texas, And The Future Of Affirmative Action In Higher Education, Scott D. Gerber
Clarence Thomas, Fisher V. University Of Texas, And The Future Of Affirmative Action In Higher Education, Scott D. Gerber
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson
Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Railroad Law, Brent M. Timberlake
Railroad Law, Brent M. Timberlake
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Daimlerchrysler V. Cuno: An Escape From The Dormant Commerce Clause Quagmire?, S. Mohsin Reza
Daimlerchrysler V. Cuno: An Escape From The Dormant Commerce Clause Quagmire?, S. Mohsin Reza
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Environmental Law, Benjamin A. Thorp Iv, William K. Taggart
Environmental Law, Benjamin A. Thorp Iv, William K. Taggart
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The United States Supreme Court's Expansive Approach To The Federal Arbitration Act: A Look At The Past, Present, And Future Of Section 2, Preston Douglas Wigner
The United States Supreme Court's Expansive Approach To The Federal Arbitration Act: A Look At The Past, Present, And Future Of Section 2, Preston Douglas Wigner
University of Richmond Law Review
The Federal Arbitration Act ["FAA"] was enacted in 1925 to ensure the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements in contracts involving maritime transactions or interstate commerce. Intending the Act to be a simple method by which an opportunity would be given to enforce written arbitration agreements, Congress enacted what has become a confusing and controversial statute. Because of the absence of an in-depth discussion regarding the scope and applicability of the Act, Congress placed unintended burdens upon the courts to decipher congressional intent. Of particular concern to the courts was the authority by which Congress enacted the FAA.