Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Few like pollution guidelines; business "up in arms" over proposed fines for corporate environmental crimes

Article Abstract:

The US Sentencing Commission draft of proposed sentences for corporate environmental crimes is ready for comment by the public and businesses have already claimed the draft guidelines are too harsh. The guidelines propose a formula for determining a fine including the defendant's expected economic gain from the offense and any pertinent aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Businesses are particularly unhappy that these fines might be levied in addition to restitution and civil penalties. The guidelines also specify requirements for compliance programs.

Author: DeBenedictis, Don J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1993
Remedies, Ethical aspects, Offenses against the environment, Environmental crimes, Corporate corruption, corporations

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


Arts grant restrictions struck down; decision is the latest to find free-speech message in abortion-counseling case

Article Abstract:

US District Judge A. Wallace Tashima, on Jun 9, 1992, in Finley v National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), invalidated a law mandating that the NEA consider 'general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American Public' when deciding on grants. The judge held that the government may not restrict freedom of speech when making funding decisions. Tashima's decision is the direct opposite of the Supreme Court's decision in Rust v Sullivan, which limited government funding to abortion clinics.

Author: DeBenedictis, Don J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1992
Cases, Freedom of speech, Powers and duties, United States. National Endowment for the Arts

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


27th Amendment ratified; congressional vote ends debate over 203-year-old pay-raise proposal

Article Abstract:

The US Constitution's 27th Amendment was ratified on May 7, 1992. This amendment mandates that if Congress passes a law giving its members a pay raise, legislators must stand for reelection before they can collect and was one of the 12 constitutional articles suggested in 1789 by James Madison. Congress' acceptance of the two-hundred-year-old amendment marks a precedent and raises concerns about the fate of other aged proposals to amend the Constitution.

Author: DeBenedictis, Don J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1992
Compensation and benefits, Political aspects, United States. Congress, Legislators, Constitutional amendments

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA

Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Patent law; examination guidelines. Patent law; business method patents. Intellectual Property Bankruptcy Act aids licensees; the act can assist those that license technology from bankrupt companies
  • Abstracts: Did high court make broad sweep in ERISA ruling? Pa. business court: proponents push for second attempt. High court asked to define 'willful violation' in ADEA
  • Abstracts: Military counsel fight command; up in arms over civilian putsch. Comp lawyer nets $450K fee in fear case; the matter's settled, but one lawyer and his allies vow to fight on
  • Abstracts: Lawyer discipline, while improved, still leaves much to be desired. Lawyers have not had a general duty to protect third parties from the bad acts of a client
  • Abstracts: Trustees' consideration of nonfinancial factors in tender of ESOP shares violates exclusive benefit rule. Sick leave payments found payroll practice exempted from ERISA despite trust established to administer benefits
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.