Digital Commons Network^™

Scholzen Products Company V. Kent Palmer, Robin Palmer : Brief Of Appellee, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, DATED JUNE 16, 1999, IN THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, CIVIL NO. 990500428 HONORABLE JAMES L. SHUMATE

Utah V. Stringham : Brief Of Appellant, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

No abstract provided.

Steven C. Davis V. Lee Ritter, Susan Ritter And Darwin C. Fisher : Brief Of Appellee, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

APPEAL FROM THE FOURTH JUDICIAL COURT, UTAH COUNTY STATE OF UTAH THE HONORABLE JUDGE GARY D. STOTT

State Of Utah V. Emil Martin Sunter : Brief Of Appellee, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

An Appeal from a conviction of one third-degree felony count of distributing or arranging distribution of a controlled substance pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(1 )(a)(ii) (1998), and four third-degree felony counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance pursuant to Utah Code Ann.§ 58-37-8(2)(a) (1998), in the Seventh Judicial District Court of Carbon County, State of Utah, the Honorable Judge Bryce K. Bryner, presiding

Carolyn Hammond Linnell V. Dennis D. Linnell : Brief Of Appellee, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

BRIEF OF APPELLEE Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court Salt Lake County, State of Utah Honorable David S. Young, Presiding

Civil Procedure: Exclusion Of Injured Or Disfigured Plaintiffs From Trial-- Cary V. Oneok, Inc. --A Solution To The Exclusion Issue Or Bad Precedent?, Kristy Freeman

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconciling The Exercise Of Judgment And The Objective Standards Of Care In Medical Malpractice, Joseph H. King Jr.

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The President As His Own Judge And Jury: A Legal Analysis Of The Presidential Self-Pardon Power, Robert Nida, Rebecca L. Spiro

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preemption: The Federal Employees Health Benefit Act(Fehba): Why The Oklahoma Supreme Court Was Wrong In Allowing State Claims In Kincade V. Group Health Services, Matthew P. Sallusti

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Limits Of Judicial Review: A Structural Interpretive Approach, Jack Wade Nowlin

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Another Look At Evolving Standards: Will Decency Prevail Against Executing The Mentally Retarded?, Bryan Lester Dupler

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law: "Am I My Brother's Keeper?" Sherrice's Law: A Balance Of American Notions Of Duty And Liberty, Justin T. King

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employee Benefits: Erisa Enhanced Benefit Claims And The Seventh Amendment: No Common Ground In The Tenth Circuit-- Adams V. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., Amy Nixon

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Immigration And The New Nativism: A Review Essay (Reviewing Immigrants Out! The New Nativism And The Anti-Immigrant Impulse In The United States, Edited By Juan F. Perea), Harvey Gee

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Volume 52 1999

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Nafta Up To Its Green Expectations? Effective Law Enforcement Under The North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation, Beatriz Bugeda

University of Richmond Law Review

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the governments of Mexico, Canada and the United States went into effect. Together with this trade agreement, the governments of the three countries entered into a side agreement on the environment: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). This agreement, also known as the Environmental Side Agreement, responded to some of the concerns of NAFTA critics. Some environmentalists believed NAFTA would promote environmentally insensitive and uncontrolled growth, and others thought the liberalization of trade would be used as a means to preempt stringent domestic environmental regulations.

International Environmental Litigation And Its Future, Philippe Sands

University of Richmond Law Review

The subject of international environmental law is relatively new. The subject was certainly not taught when the University of Richmond School of Law was established in 1870, even if early international law texts before that period did indicate a nascent concern for the issues of fisheries conservation and the use of international rivers. The late part of the last century and the early part of this one recognized a world in which international law could be divided, rather simply, between the law of peace and the law of war. It was a world with few international courts and tribunals in …

University Of Richmond Law Review Index

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice And Mrs. Lewis F. Powell Jr.: A Son's Perspective, Lewis F. Powell Iii

University of Richmond Law Review

I was very pleased to be asked to submit a Foreword for this dedicatory issue. I was nonetheless concerned that I could hardly be deemed an objective observer. Moreover, I am not qualified to critique my father's tenure on the Supreme Court. Nor can I offer any useful or interesting insight on his long years practicing law in Richmond. So, at first I resisted the Law Review's generous invitation.

University Of Richmond Law Review

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Damages For Medical Malpractice In Virginia, Michael L. Goodman, Kathryn Freeman-Jones, Kathleen M. Mccauley

University of Richmond Law Review

As a general rule, a plaintiff in actions for personal injury and wrongful death in Virginia, regardless ofwhether the cause derives from medical malpractice, may state a claim for any medical expenses incurred as a result of the alleged injury or death. By definition, an expense is incurred when it has been paid or one "become[s] legally obligated to pay it." A tortfeasor is bound and obligated to make the plaintiff whole, which means the injured party or his estate must be reasonably compensated for the fair and reasonable value of incurred medical expenses.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Domestic Relations, Melissa J. Roberts

University of Richmond Law Review

Several significant developments in the area of domestic relations law took place in the past year. This article summarizes the key judicial decisions and legislative enactments pertaining to child support, child custody and visitation, marriage and divorce, spousal support, equitable distribution (including property classification and valuation) property settlement agreements, adoption, domestic violence, jurisdiction, and procedure that occurred from June 1, 1998 through May 15, 1999.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, John L. Marshall Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

This article focuses on some of the recent developments in civil litigation from June 1, 1998 to May 30, 1999, that have been effected by the Virginia General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Virginia. Each numbered discussion section is organized by topic in alphabetical order. This article highlights legislation of general interest to civil practitioners and does not purport to be all inclusive. This article does not address criminal procedure.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: 1999 Technology Legislation In Virginia, Diane E. Horvath, John S. Jung

University of Richmond Law Review

During its 1999 Session, the Virginia General Assembly passed sixty-four pieces oflegislation related to technology that were signed into law. Of these, eighteen bills and resolutions were proposed by the Joint Commission on Technology and Science ("JCOTS").

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Wills, Trusts, And Estates, J. Rodney Johnson

University of Richmond Law Review

In its 1999 Session, the General Assembly enacted legislation dealing with wills, trusts, and estates that added, amended, or repealed a number of sections of the Code of Virginia in its 1999 Session. In addition, there were eleven Supreme Court of Virginia opinions and one Bankruptcy Court opinion in the period covered by this review that involved issues of interest to the general practitioner as well as the specialist in wills, trusts, and estates. This article reports on all of these legislative and judicial developments.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Legal Issues Involving Children, Robert E. Shepherd Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

The Virginia General Assembly once again acted in a very restrained fashion in addressing juvenile justice issues in the lengthening wake after the extensive statutory changes in 1994 and 1996. The newly enacted juvenile competency statute is an important innovation contained in the new article 18 oftitle 16.1 of the Virginia Code, and a study by the Virginia Bar Association on the applicability of the insanity defense in juvenile delinquency proceedings will further address the implications of mental health problems for children in trouble. One major issue in the delinquency area that arose during the past year involved the necessity …

State Of Utah V. Kevin Bosley : Brief Of Appellant, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

Appeal from the First Judicial District Court, Box Elder County Honorable Ben H. Hadfield

Justin F. Pavoni And Kimberly A. Pavoni V. C. Michael Nielsen And Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive: Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ON APPEAL FROM THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SUMMIT COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH PAT B, BRIAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

Appeal No. 990179-CA Priority No. 15 Oral Argument Requested

Max R. Carter V. Milford Valley Memorial Hospital, A Government Agency Of Beaver County : Brief Of Appellee, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

BRIEF OF APPELLEE Civil No. 990203-CA Appeal from a Summary Judgment, in the Fifth District Court of Beaver County, State of Utah, the Honorable J. Philip Eves presiding.

Max R. Carter Vs. Milford Valley Memorial Hospital, A Government Agency Of Beaver County : Brief Of Appellant, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (1996–2006)

BRIEF OF APPELLANT Case No. 980500056 Priority No. jc Appeal from a Summar, Judgment, in the Fifth District Court of Beaver County. State of Utah, the Honorable J. Philip Eves presiding.