Report of cases argued and determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. [1790-1796]

Dedication "To Edmund Pendleton, esquire, president of the Court of appeals ...": v.1, p. [iii]

Reports of cases decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia from April 10th 1820, to June 28th 1821 /

Includes index.

Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia /

Constitute v. 5-10 of Virginia reports.

The Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board : on writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit : brief for the National Labor Relations Board.

At head of title: In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1936. No. 365.

Law clerks to United States district judges: hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, on S. 2643, a bill to amend section 118 of the judicial code to provide for the appointment of law clerks to United States District Court Judges, August 1, 1935.

Henry F. Ashurst, chairman.

Kulp's Luzerne legal register reports /

"Containing cases decided in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and in the Court of Common Pleas, Orphans Court, Oyer and Terminer, and Court of Quarter Sessions of the County of Luzerne."

California cumulative quarterly digest : a digest of all current decisions of the Supreme and Appellate courts of California ... together with a current and keynote citer

Mode of access: Internet.

Manual of federal appellate procedure; a concise and practical treatise, annotated, on all proceedings necessary to take and perfect appeals, writs of error, petitions for review in bankruptcy, petitions to review orders of Federal trade commission, Interstate commerce commission, Federal reserve boards, decisions of District court in awards of arbitration, and federal tax appeal cases and appeals in admiralty cases ...

"Appendix (p.203-292) Rules of the United States Circuit court of appeals for the Ninth circuit. Revised rules for the Supreme Court of the United States, under act of February 13, 1925, as amended June 7, 1926. Requirements respecting petitions for writs of certiorari under the act of February 13, 1925. Jurisdictional act of February 13, 1925, as amended April 3, 1926. Sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy act, as amended May 28, 1926, effective August 28, 1926."

Reports of cases arising upon applications for letters-patent for inventions determined in the Circuit and Supreme courts of the District of Columbia on appeal from the commissioner of patents, and a table of the patents directly involved therein, together with references to the cases where these patents have been litigated and construed, sustained, or held invalid.

Reprint of the 1885 ed. published by W. H. Morrison, Washington, D.C.

The implication of a term of good faith in commercial leases

Much has been written in the past decade on the subject of the implication of a term of good faith in contracts in Australia, particularly since the judgment Priestley JA in Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234. Except for an early article by Rachael Mulheron, 'Good Faith and Commercial Leases: New Opportunities for the Tenant' (1996) 4 APLJ 223, very little else has been written with respect to the possible application of the doctrine to the commercial leases.With the advent of two later New South Wales Supreme Court decisions Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349 and, more recently, Advance Fitness v Bondi Diggers [1999] NSWSC 264, the question of the application of the doctrine in the commercial leasing context has been examined. This article briefly considers the nature and substance of the doctrine against the background of the relationship of lessor and lessee and examines in some depth the Australian decisions on commercial leases where it has been sought, unsuccessfully, to apply the doctrine. The article concludes by suggesting that as a standard commercial lease usually covers the field of agreement between lessor and lessee and as a lessee has a high degree of statutory protection derived from equitable principles, there may be little room for the operation of the doctrine in this legal environment.

Regulating Multi-National Corporations Through State-Based Laws : Problems with Enforcing Human Rights Under The Alien Tort Statute

Under the Alien Tort Statute United States of America (“America”) Federal Courts have the jurisdiction to hear claims for civil wrongs, committed against non-American citizens, which were perpetrated outside America’s national borders. The operation of this law has confronted American Federal Courts with difficulties on how to manage conflicts between American executive foreign policy and judicial interpretations of international law. Courts began to pass judgment over conduct which was approved by foreign governments. Then in 2005 the American Supreme Court wound back the scope of the Alien Tort Statute. This article will review the problems with the expansion of the Alien Tort Statute and the reasons for its subsequent narrowing.

Termination of a minor’s pregnancy : critical issues for consent and the criminal law

The recent Supreme Court decision of Queensland v B [2008] 2 Qd R 562 has significant implications for the law that governs consent and abortions. The judgment purports to extend the ratio of Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB and SMB (1991) 175 CLR 218 (Marion’s Case) and impose a requirement of court approval for terminations of pregnancy for minors who are not Gillick-competent. This article argues against the imposition of this requirement on the ground that such an approach is an unjustifiable extension of the reasoning in Marion’s Case. The decision, which is the first judicial consideration in Queensland of the position of medical terminations, also reveals systemic problems with the criminal law in that State. In concluding that the traditional legal excuse for abortions will not apply to those which are performed medically, Queensland v B provides further support for calls to reform this area of law.

Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.

Golf can be dangerous : be forewarned!

In Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 (20 May 2008) the plaintiff claimed for personal injuries suffered when he was struck by a golf ball during the course of a tournament. The plaintiff was a member of a group of four, playing in a two-day tournament at Indooroopilly Golf Club. All four players had teed off at the second hole of the course and when the defendant took his second shot; his ball struck one of the trees bordering the fairway and deflected, hitting the plaintiff who was waiting to take his third stroke. As the ball was in flight, the defendant had called out "Watch out Errol", or words to that effect, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered injury to his eye, leaving his vision impaired. The plaintiff sued in negligence, alleging that by failing to shout "fore" as is traditionally done in golf, the defendant had failed to warn the appellant and this was a breach of their duty. The claim in negligence was dismissed by the Queensland Supreme Court, holding that there had been no breach of the duty.