Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine, is a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision. It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. [1]
In the court case S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. U.S., 26 Cl. Ct. 759 (1992), Judge Plager wrote an opinion suggesting that the court had used the Christian Doctrine to resolve a case that could have been resolved more satisfactorily using other legal principles. He argued for very limited use of the Christian Doctrine based on the following ...
In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the choice between an award of damages for the cost of curing a defect in a building contract or (when that is unreasonable) for awarding damages for loss of "amenity".
Business ethics operates on the premise, for example, that the ethical operation of a private business is possible—those who dispute that premise, such as libertarian socialists (who contend that "business ethics" is an oxymoron) do so by definition outside of the domain of business ethics proper. [citation needed]
Overton Park is one of "the most important cases in the administrative law repertoire". [11] It marked a shift in how lawyers attacked federal regulation, [11] and is considered a landmark case. [2] Besides being the first interpretation of Section 701(a)(2) of the APA, it provided scholars with a "great deal" of information on Section 706 of ...