Law Commons^™

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Conflict of Laws--Mexican Bilateral Divorce Decree Recognized Even Though Neither Party was a Mexican Domiciliary At Time of Divorce

=============================

Constitutional Law--Section 504 of LMRDA a Bill of Attainder

=============================

Corporations--DeFacto Merger--Dissenters' Rights--Construction of Merger and Amendment Statutes

=============================

Criminal Law--Search and Seizure--Standing Granted for Dyer Act Prosecutions Without Allegation of Possession

=============================

Damages--Restitutionary Relief for Breach of Contract Granted Under the Tucker Act to a Government Contractor

=============================

Federal Employers' Liability Act--Applicability of "In Whole or in Part" Rule of Proximate Cause to Employer's Efforts To Prove Contributory Negligence Plaintiff brought suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act'

============================= …

Insurance--1959 Tennessee Survey, William R. Andersen

Vanderbilt Law Review

What is the meaning of the term "actual cash value" in the standard fire policy? The middle section of the court of appeals, following a prior Tennessee case and the weight of authority, held that the phrase is synonomous with "market value" only where the goods are readily replaceable in a current market. Where there is no market, or where the market value is inadequate to properly indemnify the insured, "actual cash value" means the "'value to the owner' or the loss he suffers in being deprived of the goods." Since the goods involved in this case were personal effects, …

Insurance -- 1958 Tennessee Survey, Robert W. Sturdivant

Vanderbilt Law Review

The case of Clinchfield R.R. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.' involved the question of whether the insured, in a suit against his insurer, is bound by findings adverse to him in prior litigation between the insured and a third person.The liability insurance policy involved covered certain vehicles of the railroad company but expressly excluded from coverage injuries to employees in the course of their employment. One Harrison, a regular railroad employee, was injured while riding in an insured vehicle with a fellow employee. He sued the railroad company under the Federal Employers Liability Act. Before he could recover …