Letter to Samuel Dexter, 13 November 1796

Letter regarding a bankruptcy case, later heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1797 (3 Dallas 369; Emory v. Greenough) and the upcoming national election.

Deed to Joseph Woodward, 29 November 1786

Deed for a parcel of land in Braintree, Massachusetts.

Letters and legal opinion, 1798-1823

Legal opinion on an equity case (1798). Four letters to an unnamed correspondent (1801) regarding a shipment of papers; Joseph Hopkinson, member of Congress (1817) regarding a judiciary bill; a note (1818) to the cashier of the Bank of Columbia; and to Charles T. Mercer (1823) regarding property in Loudoun County, Virginia. Folder also contains newspaper clippings (ca. 1830-1842) regarding Washington's life and career, including one taken from the Journal of Law.

Notes on cases in Lennox and Worcester, 1789

Contains notes on cases before the Supreme Court in Lennox and Worcester, Massachusetts relating to counterfeiting, libel, and fraud.

Judge's notes on cases heard in Lincoln County (Maine), 1788-1789?

Includes notes and summaries of witnesses' testimony on cases involving contracts and land disputes. One pamphlet bears note "Lincolns. July 7th 1789. Pownalboro. Supreme Court." Pownalborough Court House is in Dresden, Maine, which succeded from Pownalborough. In 1804, the town Pownalborough was renamed Wiscasset.

Miscellaneous legal documents, 1751-1840

Subpoenas for the sheriff of Philadelphia County to individuals to serve for actions relating to trespass on a case, ejectment, and replevin of three negro slaves.

Record of cases, 1738-1758

Contains summaries of cases brought before the court of appeals with the judgment rendered by Edward Trelawny and transcribed by Samuel Williams.

Notes of cases before colonial New Jersey courts, 1735-1755

Contains notes of cases before several New Jersey courts especially the New Jersey Supreme Court. Possibly compiled by Coxe.

Student poem composed by Joseph Story, 1796

Four-page handwritten poem composed in English by Joseph Story as a Harvard undergraduate. The verso of the last page is inscribed "Story's 1796." The poem contains classical allusions and is titled with the quote: "Aut Caeusar, aut nullus." The poem begins, "In elder climes, ere science' mystic page / Gave light unfolded to a barbarous age..." The poem ends with verse about George Washington. The text includes edits and struck-through words.

The EU essential facilities doctrine. Research Papers in Law, 6/2006

Introduction. The essential facilities doctrine may be seen as the ‘extra weight’ which is put onto the balance, in order to give precedence to the maintenance of competition over the complete contractual freedom of undertakings controlling an important and unique facility. The main purpose of the doctrine is to impose upon such ‘dominant’ undertakings the duty to negotiate and/or give access to the facility, against a reasonable fee, to other undertakings, which cannot pursue their own activity (and therefore will perish) without access to such a facility. This very simple description of the content of the doctrine underlines its limitations: through the imposition of a duty to negotiate or contractual obligations, the rule tends to compensate for the weaknesses of the competitive structure of a market, which are due to the existence of some essential facility. In other words, the doctrine does not by itself provide a definitive solution to the lack of competition, but tends to contractually maintain or even create some competition.1 The doctrine of essential facilities originates in the US antitrust case law of the Circuit and District Courts, but has never been officially acknowledged by the Supreme Court. It has been further developed and hotly debated by scholars in the US, both from a legal and from an economic viewpoint. In the EU, the essential facilities doctrine was openly introduced by the Commission during the early 1990s, but has received only limited and indirect support by the Court of First Instance (the CFI) and the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). It also indirectly inspired the legislation concerning the deregulation of traditional ‘natural’ monopolies. The judicial origin of the doctrine, combined with the hesitant application by the appeal courts, both in the US and the EU, cast uncertainty not only on the precise scope of the doctrine, but also on the issue of its very existence. These questions receive a particular light within the EU context, where the doctrine is called upon to play a different role from its US counterpart. In order to address the above issues, we will first pretend that an EU essential facility doctrine does indeed exist and we shall try to identify the scope and content thereof, through its main applications (Section 1). Subsequently, we will try to answer the question whether such a doctrine should exist at all in the EU (Section 2).

Rules of practice for the courts of equity of the United States /

Mode of access: Internet.

Revised rules adopted April 12, 1954, effective July 1, 1954.

Cover title.

The constitution, congress, and the courts : speech of Hon. David J. Lewis, of Maryland, in the House of Representatives, Monday, March 8, 1937.

"(Not printed at government expense.)"

Rules of civil procedure for the United States District Courts. : Hearing[s] Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, on S.J. Res. 281, a joint resolution to postpone the effective date of the Rules of civil procedure.

[pt.1] Hearing, April 18, 1938.--pt.2. Hearing, May 19, 1938.

Revised rules, adopted February 13, 1939, effective February 27, 1939, amended March 25, 1940, October 21, 1940, and May 26, 1941 [and] later amendments.

Appendix (13 pages at end): Act of February 13, 1925, chapter 229, 43 Stat. 936 (amendments to May 22, 1939, included).