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

Constitute v. 5-10 of Virginia reports.

Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner and others Defendants-Appellees-Petitioners v. George P. Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent : brief for Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent : Edward F. McClennen, Jacob J. Kaplan for the respondent.

At head of title: Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1936, no. 910.

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.

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

Freedom of religion : a case study of the Church of Lukumí Babalú Ayé v. City of Hialeah

This thesis attempted to explain society's worldview of Santeria and its practice of animal sacrifice, and the breakdown between the federal and local government after a 1993 Supreme Court ruling affirming their right to engage in this sacred ritual. Santeria practitioners are harassed and prosecuted for exercising their right to practice animal sacrifice. The research was intended to present the cosmology of the Lukumi tradition, the intellectual framework explored, a review of Freedom of Religion and the case of Lukumi v. Hialeah, and finally the media's role in shaping the worldview of Santeria that have perpetuated this breakdown. The thesis consisted of 87 research items, a community survey, interviews, a Santeria divination, and review of case law, books,newspaper and online journals. These findings demonstrated that freedom of religion is not so free in the U.S., and exists only to the extent the media and municipal laws choose to allow.

The Affordable Care Act and the Transformation of US Health Care

The neoliberal period was accompanied by a momentous transformation within the US health care system.  As the result of a number of political and historical dynamics, the healthcare law signed by President Barack Obama in 2010 ‑the Affordable Care Act (ACA)‑ drew less on universal models from abroad than it did on earlier conservative healthcare reform proposals. This was in part the result of the influence of powerful corporate healthcare interests. While the ACA expands healthcare coverage, it does so incompletely and unevenly, with persistent uninsurance and disparities in access based on insurance status. Additionally, the law accommodates an overall shift towards a consumerist model of care characterized by high cost sharing at time of use. Finally, the law encourages the further consolidation of the healthcare sector, for instance into units named “Accountable Care Organizations” that closely resemble the health maintenance organizations favored by managed care advocates. The overall effect has been to maintain a fragmented system that is neither equitable nor efficient. A single payer universal system would, in contrast, help transform healthcare into a social right.

Jogando com o psicodrama : uma contribuição para a psicologia do esporte

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física