Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Cause of action (1)
- Consumer Protection Act (1)
- Consumer Protection Laws (1)
- Cronin v. Islamic Republic of Iran (1)
- Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act of 1994 (1)
-
- Dietary supplements (1)
- Ephedra (1)
- FDA (1)
- Flatow Amendment (1)
- Food and Drug Administration (1)
- Foreign Policy (1)
- Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (1)
- Foreign states (1)
- Government Tort Liability (1)
- Hangman Ridge (1)
- Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy (1)
- Politics (1)
- Private Cause of Action (1)
- Public Interest (1)
- Public Interest Requirement (1)
- Purely Governmental Functions and Decisions (1)
- Regulations (1)
- Sovereign Immunity (1)
- State Department (1)
- State Liability (1)
- Unfair or Deceptive Acts (1)
- Waiver of Sovereign Immunity (1)
- Washington CPA (1)
- Washington Law (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Flatow Amendment And State-Sponsored Terrorism, Joseph Keller
The Flatow Amendment And State-Sponsored Terrorism, Joseph Keller
Seattle University Law Review
This article argues that the Flatow Amendment does not provide a cause of action against a foreign state itself and, further, that judicial consultation of the State Department is appropriate and desirable in cases affecting foreign policy, such as those requiring interpretation of the Flatow Amendment. Part I analyzes early judicial interpretation of the Flatow Amendment, examine and critique the methodology of Cronin and its progeny, explain application of the Charming Betsy principle to this line of cases, and conclude that the Flatow Amendment provides a cause of action against the officials, employees, or agents of a foreign state, but …
Washington State's 45-Year Experiment In Government Liability, Michael Tardif, Rob Mckenna
Washington State's 45-Year Experiment In Government Liability, Michael Tardif, Rob Mckenna
Seattle University Law Review
Washington's waiver of sovereign immunity has been in force for nearly forty-five years, during which time many questions have been answered. New litigation, however, continues to expand the scope of the waiver, and the extent of liability continues to raise new questions and present difficult problems. Major problems include the uncertainty of case-by-case determinations of government liability and the cost of liability for inherently risky governmental programs, such as corrections and child welfare. Part I of this Article examines the waiver against the background of prior Washington law and the pattern of immunity waivers in other jurisdictions. This examination reveals …
Dispensing With The Public Interest Requirement In Private Causes Of Action Under The Washington Consumer Protection Act, Jonathan A. Mark
Dispensing With The Public Interest Requirement In Private Causes Of Action Under The Washington Consumer Protection Act, Jonathan A. Mark
Seattle University Law Review
It has been more than eighteen years since the Washington Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Hangman Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco Title Insurance Company. This was the final decision in a string of cases in which the court attempted to resolve problems arising from the application and interpretation of the right to a private cause of action under Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). This Article explores the application of the public interest requirement since the decision in Hangman Ridge and considers whether the tests devised by the Hangman Ridge court to determine public interest are still …
Stomaching The Burden Of Dietary Supplement Safety: The Need To Shift The Burden Of Proof Under The Dietary Supplement Health And Education Act Of 1994, Morgan J. Wais
Seattle University Law Review
This article gives a brief historical perspective on dietary supplement regulation and discusses the evolution of drug regulation by the FDA. Part II concludes with a discussion of the political environment in which these regulations occur. Part III gives examples and show how the current system has caused injury and harm to consumers of dietary supplements. Part IV discusses the current burden of proof and how it was applied in the case of ephedra. Part V discusses how, under the current regulatory structure, consumers cannot be adequately protected, either by the FDA or the tort system. Part VI discusses the …