Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Electric Employees of America v. Lockridge (1)
- Amalgamated Food Employees Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza Inc. (1)
- Blanks v. Jiggetts (1)
- Bruce Farms Inc. v. Coupe (1)
- Carpenter v. Donohoe (1)
-
- Caveat emptor (1)
- Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association (1)
- Gilman v. Ryan (1)
- Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board (1)
- Hartleyv. Ballou (1)
- Hostetterv. Inland Development Corp. of Montana (1)
- Hudgens v. NLRB (1)
- Humber v. Morton (1)
- In re Thomas A. Carey (1)
- International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Ariadne Shipping Co. (1)
- Jackson v. Morrison (1)
- Krol v. York Terrace Building (1)
- Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. Cashatt (1)
- Mann v. Clowser (1)
- Miller v. Cannon Hill Estates Ltd (1)
- NLRA (1)
- NLRB (1)
- NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co (1)
- NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co (1)
- National Labor Relations Act (1)
- PIC Construction Company v. First Union National Bank (1)
- Professor Wade (1)
- Restatement of Restitution (1)
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1)
- Schipper v. Levitt & Sons (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sears, Roebuck & Co. V. San Diego County District Council Of Carpenters: Garmon Reconsidered And The Reaffirmation Of Property Rights, Keith Barker
University of Richmond Law Review
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters resolves the problem of a jurisdictional hiatus facing an employer when a union's peaceful picketing on his property is within the ambit of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act). Prior to the Sears decision, the right of the states to enjoin labor union picketing on an employer's private property, when the union's picketing was arguably protected and arguably prohibited, was uncertain. As a rule, conduct which is arguably protected under the Act or arguably prohibited under the Act, with few exceptions, cannot be the subject …
Virginia's Reaction To An Implied Warranty In Real Estate Transactions: Bruce Farms, Inc. V. Coupe, Deborah C. Welsh
Virginia's Reaction To An Implied Warranty In Real Estate Transactions: Bruce Farms, Inc. V. Coupe, Deborah C. Welsh
University of Richmond Law Review
Years ago, caveat emptor was the rule in real estate transactions. A home buyer's own inspection was considered reliable in determining if the house was structurally sound and habitable. Today, the situation is different. Potentially troublesome conditions in a house are easily concealed, and inspection by the buyer may not reveal latent defects. For this reason, the doctrine of implied warranty has replaced caveat emptor in many jurisdictions.
Mechanics Liens - Allocation Among Multi-Unit Projects Under Virginia Law, David L. Lingerfelt
Mechanics Liens - Allocation Among Multi-Unit Projects Under Virginia Law, David L. Lingerfelt
University of Richmond Law Review
In several recent decisions the Virginia Supreme Court and the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia have ruled on the validity of blanket or joint mechanic's liens. The blanket lien, as may be inferred from its name, is used to encumber more than one property unit in a single action. Its benefit is sought when an artisan or material supplier has improved two or more units in one transaction, and there has been a failure of remuneration. The mechanic's lien gives the artisan a preferred status among creditors, and therefore its immunity to attack is of critical …
Barring Slayers' Acquisition Of Property Rights In Virginia: A Proposed Statute, Sandra Gross Schneider
Barring Slayers' Acquisition Of Property Rights In Virginia: A Proposed Statute, Sandra Gross Schneider
University of Richmond Law Review
The above passage by Justice Benjamin Cardozo clearly reflects the age-old maxim of the common law, Nullus commodurn caperepotest de injuria sua propria, which expounds the philosophy that no individual shall profit from his own wrong. The present Virginia statute concerning homicide and succession to property was enacted by the legislature to reflect this common law policy. However, because of the very narrow scope of the statute and the requirement that it be strictly construed, it is presently inadequate to respond to many of the issues facing our judges in Virginia. Section 64.1-18 of the Virginia Code states that no …