Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Another broken promise to the United States Indians

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court correctly vacated the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in South Dakota v. Dept of the Interior because Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act is a constitutional legislative delegation of authority. The court left many issues unanswered, however, regarding the nondelegation doctrine debate. In order to resolve these questions, the US Supreme Court should adopt a functionalist approach over a formalist approach toward the Secretary of the Interior reserving lands in trust for Native Americans.

Author: Roff, Jessica
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Administrative Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0001-8368
Year: 1997
Native Americans, Native North Americans, Delegation of powers

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The reasons for and ramifications of eliminating "true doubt."(Case Note)

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's decision in Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, defining burden of proof in section 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as meaning a burden of persuasion, cancelled fifty years of precedence regarding the true doubt rule. The Court's decision fundamentally shifted the approach plaintiffs will need to take when bringing black lung disease cases. Plaintiffs can expect greater expenses and evidentiary burdens in pursuing their cases.

Author: Courtney, Rachel
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Administrative Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0001-8368
Year: 1997
Burden of proof, Pneumoconiosis, Black lung disease

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


A new look at reasons - one step forward - two steps backward

Article Abstract:

The House of Lords ruling in R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Lonrho PLC re-emphasizes the negative stance of the common law toward the giving of reasons for administrative decisions by implying that there is no affirmative common law duty to provide reasons and that these are instructive only if an extremely strong case has been established. Citizens have a right to know the reasons for administrative actions and Lonrho shows why it is dangerous to rely on judges to give them.

Author: Antoine, Rose M.B.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Administrative Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0001-8368
Year: 1992
Judicial review of administrative acts

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Administrative law, Case Note
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Chromalloy: United States law and international arbitration at the crossroads. Achieving restitution: the potential unjust enrichment claims of indigenous peoples against multinational corporations
  • Abstracts: The use of open terms in contract. The great transformation of regulated industries law
  • Abstracts: Retirement plan benefits: what are the spouse's options? Estate planning to avoid complications of remarriage
  • Abstracts: The role of the judiciary in environmental protection. Models for environmental regulation: central planning versus market-based approaches
  • Abstracts: Income tax planning opportunities for residential realty. The benefits of establishing a private foundation in Delaware
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.