| |
|
Texas Law Review Archives
|
|
Volume 48
1970 -1971
Issue Number: 1 2
3 4
5 6
7
|
| Issue 1 |
Back
to the Top
|
|
|
| Issue 2 |
Back
to the Top
|
- Article:
Products
Liability - Inadequacy of Information, W. Page
Keeton, Page. 398.
- Comment: Threshold
Prerequisites to Securities Fraud Class Actions,
James L. Leader, Page 417.
- Comment:
Common
Ownership of Rail and Motor Carriers: The Case Against the
Railroads, Carol Cox Stitt, Page 460.
- Note: Jones
Act Applies to Allow Recovery by Greek Seamen Injured in a
United States Port on Greek-Flag Vessel Owned and Controlled
by United States Domiciliaries Hellenic Lines, Ltd.
v. Rhoditis, Page 480.
- Note: A
Vessel Is Rendered Unseaworthy By The Negligence of an
Independent Contractor When A Sufficient Period of Time Has
Passed Between the Negligence and the Injury, Page
484.
- Note: In
A Civil Action for Damages, a Pilot's Negligence Is Not
Imputed to the Owner and Lessor of the Aircraft by
theFederal Aviation Act. Rosdail v.
Western Aviation, Inc, Page 488.
- Note: A
Criminal Statutory Presumption Violates Due Process of Law
Unless the Presumed Fact is More Likely Than Not to Flow
From the Proven Fact on Which It Is Made to Depend.
Leary v. United States, Page 493.
- Note: Under
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(a) and (b), a
Corporate Defendant May Discover the Grand Jury Testimony of
All Present and Former Officers and Employees Concerning
Activities Carried on Within the Scope of Their Employment
as well as Grand Jury Documents, Including Transcripts,
Material to Its Defense. United States v.
Hughes, Page 501.
- Note: The
Federal Aviation Anti-Injunction Statute Does Not Bar
Injunctive Relief Under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 When
Bad Faith Use of State Proceedings Threatens Irreparable
Injury to the Right of Free Expression. Sheridan
v. Garrison, Page 506.
- Note: Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 - Attorneys Engaging in
Persuader Activities Must Report Receipts and Disbursements
From All Labor Relations Advice and Services.
Price v. Wirtz, Page 512.
- Note:
A
State May Not Enjoin a Union's Peaceful Picketing of a
Common Worksite When the Parties to a "Major"
Dispute Have Unsuccessfully Exhausted All Conciliatory
Procedures Required by the Railway Labor Act.
Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville, Page 518.
- Book Review: Texas
Practice: The Texas Law of Wills. By Edward W.
Bailey, Gibson Gayle, Jr., Page 524.
|
| Issue 3 |
Back
to the Top
|
- Article: Federal
Injunctive Relief Against State Court Proceedings: The
Significance of Dombrowski, Frank L. Maraist, Page
535.
- Observation: A
Requiem for the Warren Court, Vince Blasi, Page 608.
- Comment: Public
Employee Bargaining Rights - A Proposal for Texas,
Schuyler B. Marshall, Page 625.
- Comment: Stanley
v. Georgia: New Directions in Obscenity Regulation?,
Richard A. Karre, Page 646.
- Comment: Indemnification
of Directors for Section 11 Liability, Wayne
McCormack, Page 661.
- Note:
The
Outer Continental Shelf Lands is the Exclusive Method of
Recovery for Deaths of Nonmaritine Workers on Artificial
Drilling Rigs. Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co, Page 680.
- Note: Autonomous
Competing Sales Divisions of a Single Corporation Are
Incapable of Conspiring to Restrain Trade in Violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Joseph E.
Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors,
Ltd., Page 685.
- Note: The
Robinson-Patman Act Permits Recovery Based on the Amount of
Discrimination in Price Between Business Competitors Without
Proof of the Actual Injury to Business or Property.
Fowler Mfg. Co. v. Gorlick, Page 690.
- Note: The
Standard of Sufficiency of Evidence to Create a Jury
Question in FELA Cases is Peculiar to That Type of Case, and
a Reasonable Man Standard is Applicable in Non-FELA Jury
Trials. Boeing Co. v. Shipman, Page 695.
- Note: Punitive
Damages Held Not Available in an Action for Violation of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.
Underwriter's Indemnification Agreement is Unenforceable
When Underwriter Has Actual Knowledge of an Omission or
Misstatement in an Offering Circular. Glabus
v. Law Research Serv., Inc., Page 701.
- Note: An
Amendment to the Texas Warehousing Act Precludes Liability
of Cotton Brokers and Buyers for Conversion Subsequent to
the Issuance of Negotiable Warehouse Receipts and Relieves
Cotton Compresses of the Duty to Note Liens on the Receipts,
Page 706.
- Note: A
Loan Can Be Usurious Even Though the Lender Has No Intent To
Charge Interest Above the Statutory Maximum.
Terry v. Teachworth, Page 711.
|
| Issue 4 |
Back
to the Top
|
- Article: Divorce
and Taxes - Texas Style,
Edward W. Turley, Jr., Page 721.
- Lecture:
Access
- The Only Choice for the Media?, Jerome A. Barron,
Page 766.
- Lecture:
Rights
of Access to Mass Media - Government Obligation to Enforce
First Amendment?, Clifton Daniel, Page 783.
- Comment: Divestiture
in Light of the El Paso Experience, Michael C.
O'Connor, Page 792.
- Comment: Potential
Reciprocity and Section 7 of the Clayton Act: Conglomerate
Mergers Under Antitrust Attack, Don W. Baker, Page
810.
- Note:
Doctrine
of Cy Pres-Deviation Used to Eliminate Racial Restriction in
a Scholarship Trust Fund. Bank of Delaware v.
Buckson, Page 827.
- Note:
Under
Implied Consent Statutes a Driver Suspected of Being
Intoxicated Has the Right to Consult with Counsel Before
Deciding to Submit to Chemical Tests. Virginia
Islands v. Quinones, Page 831.
- Note:
A
Manufacturer's Gross Income Includes a Portion of
Unconditional Advance Payments Received During the Year for
Incomplete or Undelivered Goods. Hagen
Advertising Displays, Inc., Page 836.
- Note: Clear
Proof of a Conspiracy in Violation of the Sherman Act is
Necessary to Satisfy the Standard of Proof Required by
Section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Ramsey
v. United Mine Workers, Page 840.
- Note: The
Duty of Deputy Sheriff to Arrest Motorists Driving in
Violation of the Law is Owed to the General Public and Not
to Persons Killed in a Collision with the Violators.
Massengill v. Yuma County, Page 845.
- Note: The
Texas Anatomical Gift Act Provides a Legal Mechanism for the
Donation of Bodily Organs to Medical Research and Therapy,
Page 852.
- Book Review: Sales
and Secured Transactions: Problems and Materials, by Robert
J. Nordstrom & Norman D. Lattin (1968), Donald
E. Clifford, Jr. and Richard M. Smith, Page 862.
|
| Issue 5 |
Back
to the Top
|
- Article: Common
Ownership of Rail and Motor Carriers: The Case for the
Railroads, Carl Helmetag, Jr., Page 889.
- Comment: The
Contractual Will: Invitation to Litigation and Excess
Taxation, Gareth W. Cook, Page 909.
- Comment: The
Application of Texas Usury Laws to Equity Participation
Agreements, Stephen M. Hackerman, Page 925.
- Note: A
Law That Allows an Abortion Only When "Necessary to
Preserve" the Life of the Mother Violates a Qualified
Constitutional Right to an Abortion and Is
Unconstitutionally Vague. People v. Belous,
Page 937.
- Note:
A
Bar Association is Not Immune From Suit for Damages Under
Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act When It Deprives a
Person of His First Amendment Rights, But Probable Cause is
Available As A Defense. Dacey v. New York
County Lawyers' Ass'n, Page 946.
- Note: The
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Does Not Include Within Its
Concept of "Labeling" Literature That Develops the
Doctrines of a Religion. Founding Church of
Scientology v. United States, Page 951.
- Note: When
an Accused Is Not Free To Leave, Failure by the Police To
Advise Him of His Miranda Rights Prior to Interrogation
Violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Orozco v. Texas, Page 955.
- Note: Claims
of Deprivation of Civil Rights That Result From an Adverse
Adjudication of Constitutional Issues by State Courts are
Res Judicata, and Federal District Courts Have No
Jurisdiction Over Them. Brown v. Chastain,
Page 959.
- Note: Violation
of Housing Regulations Under the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933
Regarding Migratory Workers Is an Adequate Foundation for
Federal Jurisdiction Under Either the Interstate Commerce or
the Civil Rights Jurisdictional Statute. Gomez
v. Florida State Employment Serv., Page 966.
- Note: A
Process on an Analog Computer Which Also Reads Upon a
General Purpose Digital Computer Does Not Necessarily Fall
Within the "Mental Step" Exclusion and May Be
Patentable if the Specificity Requirements of Section 112
Are Fulfilled. Application of Prater 1969,
Page 971.
- Note: A
Party Cannot Collaterally Attack a Judgment Recital That He
Was Served with Citation in Order to Avoid the Compulsory
Counterclaim Effects of a Prior Judgment.
Akers v. Simpson, Page 978.
- Book Review : "The
Nader Report" on the Federal Trade Commission. By
Edward F. Cox, Robert C. Fellmeth, and John E. Schultz,
Melvin G. Dakin, Page 985.
- Book Review:
Michigan
International Labor Studies: Labor Relations and the Law in
the United Kingdom and the United States. By Henry E.
Seyfarth, Lee C. Shaw, Owen Fairweather, and Raymond I.
Geraldson, William B. Gould, Page 987.
|
| Issue 6 |
Back
to the Top
|
|
| Issue 7 |
Back
to the Top
|
- Article: Life
Under Lear, Tom Arnold and Jack Goldstein, Page
1235.
- Article: The
Games Bureaucrats Play: Hide and Seek Under the Freedom of
Information Act, Joan M. Katz, Page 1261.
- Comment: Local
and Regional Water Pollution Control in Texas, W.
Thomas Jacks, Page 1286.
- Note: Federal
Trade Commissioners Cannot Completely Ignore Testimony Given
at a Hearing Before an Examiner Without Violating Standards
of Due Process. Cinderellas Career &
Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, Page 1385.
- Note: Barship
v. City of Houston signals a new Texas approach for
evaluating projec-induced enhancement in multiple
condemnation proceedings, Page 1389.
- Note: Federal
Regulations Passed Pursuant to the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 Preemp Only State
Regulations Specifically Related to the Same Aspect of
Performance Governed by Federal Standards.
Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, Page 1394.
- Note: A
Licensing Contract for the Manufacture of Unpatented Devices
for Which No Patent Application Has Been Made Is
Unenforceable.
Painton v. Co. v. Bourns, Page 1399.
- Note: There
Is No Duty To Wear a Seat Belt Because It Is Not Forseeable
That Failure To Utilize This Safety Device Will Result in
Injury to Others. Quinius v. Estrada, Page
1405.
|
|
|