Suchergebnisse

This year witnessed the advance of a wide variety of antitrust and trade regulation theories, most of which met with little success. Of the antitrust cases, Continental Airlines waged a successful battle to eliminate carry-on baggage restrictions at Dulles Airport. Additionally, Maryland's price-setting scheme for liquor was not accorded state action immunity. On the other side of the ledger, another antitrust litigant failed to overcome the requirement that efforts to petition the government must be objectively baseless in order to meet the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Difficulties in proving an antitrust injury and the intent element of a section conspiracy to monopolize claim ended another long-pitched battle over limited vermiculite resources. The Fourth Circuit treated an exclusive supply case with the same sort of back-of-the-hand treatment accorded most vertical restraint cases over the past ten years. Likewise, regardless of the statutory or regulatory scheme, dealership and franchise termination cases met with little success. Finally, while the malice requirement in the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act (the "Act") has become ingrained in Virginia jurisprudence as the legal malice standard, courts are finding other ways to dispose of these claims. In doing so, courts have enunciated a clear and convincing evidence standard for cases under the Act.

"The My Itty-Bitty Bio series are biographies for the earliest readers. This book examines the life of political and social activist Grace Lee Boggs, a Chinese American author and revolutionary, in a simple, age-appropriate way that helps children develop word recognition and reading skills. The series celebrates diversity, covering women and men from a range of backgrounds and professions including immigrants and individuals with disabilities."--

Treaties — Operation of — Application to Non- Metropolitan Territories.Aliens — Treatment of — Cautio judicatum solvi — Treaties — Operation and Enforcement of — Application to Non-Metropolitan Territories — Application to Algeria of Treaties Ratified by France

475Treaties — Effects — International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 — Plaintiff company seeking to invoke relevant provisions — Article 2.1(a) of Convention — Applicability of Convention — Event giving rise to claim occurring before Convention entering into force in Australia — Whether Convention having retrospective application — Interpretation — Construction — Customary international law — Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 giving effect in Australian law to International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 — Section 6 of 1989 Act — Relevance of date of entry into forceSea — Sea-bed — Damaged cable — Limitation of liability for maritime claims — Municipal law — International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 — Plaintiff company seeking to invoke relevant provisions of Convention — Applicability — The law of Australia

International tribunals — Jurisdiction — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Special Agreement — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ("UNCLOS") — Articles 286, 287 and 288 of UNCLOS — Article 21 of Statute of Tribunal — Admissibility — Objections to admissibility — Preclusions from raising objections in special agreement — Time limit — Single-phase proceedings — Article 97(1) of Rules of Tribunal — Requirement of a genuine link — Article 91(1) of UNCLOS — Nationality of claims — Whether exhaustion of local remedies rule applying where State's rights directly injured — Article 295 of UNCLOSSea — Exclusive economic zone — Navigation — Rights of regulation of coastal State — Whether coastal States having competence to regulate bunkering in their exclusive economic zones — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ("UNCLOS") — Articles 56(1), 58 and 62(4) of UNCLOS — Boarding, inspection and arrest of vessel as enforcement measures — Confiscation as enforcement measure — Necessity — Reasonableness — Mitigating factors — Article 73(1) — Prompt release — Article 73(2) — Whether confinement of crew and holding of passports amounting to imprisonment — Article 73(3) — Notification of detention and arrest of vessel — Article 73(4) — Whether principles could be derived from Articles 110 and 224 — Excessive force in enforcement measures — Endangering safety of navigation, creating hazards to vessels, exposure of unreasonable risks to marine environment — Whether Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 applicable — Abuse of rights — Application of Article 300 of UNCLOSState responsibility — Compensation for damage and losses relating to value of confiscated gas oil — Compensation for cost of repairs in respect of some damages — Compensation for loss of profit not awarded — Causal nexus — InterestTreaties — Interpretation — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982

The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that the Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining in the Commonwealth. The Court held that although the Act delegated substantial power over the nuclear life cycle to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it offered no indication that Congress sought to strip states of their traditional power to regulate mining on private lands within their borders.

This article makes an originalist argument in defense of the Supreme Court's holding in Loving v. Virginia that antimiscegenation laws are unconstitutional. This article builds on past work by Professor Michael McConnell defending Brown v. Board of Education on originalist grounds and by Professor Calabresi defending strict scrutiny for gender classifications on originalist grounds. Professor Calabresi's work in this area was defended and praise recently by Slate magazine online. The article shows that Loving v. Virginia is defensible using the public meaning originalism advocated for by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. This article shows that the issue in Loving is a classic conflict between text and legislative history.