Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement Of Dec. 19, 1986, State Of Colorado, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, United States Department Of The Interior, United States Department Of Justice, Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Florida Water Conservancy District, Mancos Water Conservancy District, Southwestern Water Conservation District, City Of Durango, Town Of Pagosa Springs, Florida Farmers Ditch Company, Florida Canal Company, Fairfield Communities, Inc.
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement Of Dec. 19, 1986, State Of Colorado, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, United States Department Of The Interior, United States Department Of Justice, Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Florida Water Conservancy District, Mancos Water Conservancy District, Southwestern Water Conservation District, City Of Durango, Town Of Pagosa Springs, Florida Farmers Ditch Company, Florida Canal Company, Fairfield Communities, Inc.
Native American Water Rights Settlement Project
Settlement Agreement: The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement (Dec. 10, 1986) The Ute Mountain Tribe is entitled to: water from the Dolores Project for municipal/industrial, irrigation and fish/wildlife purposes & development with a priority date of 1868. Repayment of construction costs allocable to irrigation purposes shall be deferred; water from the Animas-La Plata Project for municipal/ industrial and for irrigation with a priority date of 1868; water from the Mancos River for irrigation; water from the Navajo Wash for irrigation; and water from the San Juan River. The Southern Ute Tribe is entitled to: water from the …
Government Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Christina B. Whitman
Government Responsibility For Constitutional Torts, Christina B. Whitman
Articles
This essay is about the language used to decide when governments should be held responsible for constitutional torts.' Debate about what is required of government officials, and what is required of government itself, is scarcely new. What is new, at least to American jurisprudence, is litigation against government units (rather than government officials) for constitutional injuries. 2 The extension of liability to institutional defendants introduces special problems for the language of responsibility. In a suit against an individual official it is easy to describe the wrong as the consequence of individual behavior that is inconsistent with community norms; the language …
Making Plaintiffs Whole: The Need For Front Pay Under The Adea And Other Antidiscrimination Statutes
Making Plaintiffs Whole: The Need For Front Pay Under The Adea And Other Antidiscrimination Statutes
Law and Contemporary Problems
No abstract provided.
Divestiture As A Remedy In Private Actions Brought Under Section 16 Of The Clayton Act, Paul V. Timmins
Divestiture As A Remedy In Private Actions Brought Under Section 16 Of The Clayton Act, Paul V. Timmins
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that private parties should be permitted to bring suits for divestiture under section 16 of the Clayton Act. Part I analyzes the language of section 16 and the relevant legislative history of the Clayton Act and concludes that Congress did not intend to limit the injunctive relief available to private parties. Part II argues that courts should be free to exercise their broad equity powers to grant the most appropriate and effective relief, including divestiture, to an injured plaintiff. Finally, Part III contends that policy considerations disfavor omitting divestiture from the types of equitable remedies that a …
The Law Of Construction Bonds In Arkansas: A Review, David G. Paul
The Law Of Construction Bonds In Arkansas: A Review, David G. Paul
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Safeguarding Equality For The Handicapped: Compensatory Relief Under Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act, John D. Briggs
Safeguarding Equality For The Handicapped: Compensatory Relief Under Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act, John D. Briggs
Duke Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Unfair And Deceptive Legislation: The Case For Finding North Carolina General Statutes Section 75-1.1 Unconstitutionally Vague As Applied To An Alleged Breach Of A Commercial Contract, Thomas A. Farr
Campbell Law Review
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act in 1969. The original purpose of the act was to protect consumers from predatory business practices. Nonetheless, the North Carolina Supreme Court has sanctioned an expanded application of the act to cases involving sophisticated commercial parties. This article will attempt to demonstrate that it is poor public policy to apply section 75-1.1 to cases based upon an alleged breach of a commercial contract and that in at least those instances section 75-1.1 is unconstitutionally vague.
United States-Based Multinational Corporations Should Be Tried In The United States For Their Extraterritorial Toxic Torts, Dianna B. Shew
United States-Based Multinational Corporations Should Be Tried In The United States For Their Extraterritorial Toxic Torts, Dianna B. Shew
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
When a foreign plaintiff sues a United States-based multinational for damages resulting from an extraterritorial toxic tort, the case should be tried in United States courts. The courts are assured of personal jurisdiction as long as there are sufficient contacts between the foreign subsidiary and the United States. Dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens is not desirable because the United States has a vested interest in monitoring and even influencing the behavior of multinationals that do business within its borders. The requisite "adequate alternative forum" is simply not available in some countries. In addition, despite their case backload, United …
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Adoption of comparative negligence gives juries the task of allocating fault between a plaintiff and a defendant when both were negligent and both caused the plaintiff's injury. A logical corollary must be that juries are theoretically and practically able to make such an allocation. If so, it follows that juries are able to make such an allocation among multiple defendants, each of whom was found to be both negligent and a cause of the plaintiff's injury. The judicial adoption of comparative negligence in Kentucky therefore requires a reexamination of the rules applicable to multiple tortfeasors. Cases decided since the adoption …