Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Property And Tort In Nuclear Law Today, Kazimierz Grzybowski, William Dobishinski Jan 1977

Property And Tort In Nuclear Law Today, Kazimierz Grzybowski, William Dobishinski

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Legal regimes regulating the exploitation of atomic energy follow three patterns. The pattern adopted in a particular country depends upon its social and governmental structure. In socialist states, like the Soviet Union, the state owns and uses nuclear materials and installations and is a monopolistic insurer against atomic hazards. In such states nuclear energy law is simplicity itself. It consists of instructions and regulations on the handling, transport and storage of nuclear materials, and the management of nuclear installations by administrative agencies. An important part of the regulations deals with the safety and health of the workers.

Countries in which …


The State As A Party Defendant: Abrogation Of Sovereign Immunity In Tort In Maryland Jan 1977

The State As A Party Defendant: Abrogation Of Sovereign Immunity In Tort In Maryland

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.


Misrepresentation - Part I, Fleming James Jr., Oscar S. Gray Jan 1977

Misrepresentation - Part I, Fleming James Jr., Oscar S. Gray

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.


Kentucky Law Survey: Torts, Richard C. Ausness Jan 1977

Kentucky Law Survey: Torts, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This issue of the Survey of Kentucky tort law includes recent decisions on false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and products liability. The first case, Consolidated Sales Co. v. Malone, held that Kentucky's shoplifter detention statute authorized a personal search of suspected shoplifters by store personnel. In the second case, Eigelbach v. Watts, the Kentucky Supreme Court adhered to its longstanding rule that physical impact was essential to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally, in the third decision, McMichael v. American Red Cross, the Court, utilizing the Restatement's “unavoidably unsafe” rationale, refused to impose …