4328 research outputs found
Sort by
Environmental Class Actions Seeking Damages: The Need for Environmental Class Action Suits
Full text linkTwo Workers
Full text linkThis article profiles two individuals who were workers in two distinct industries. The first profile is of Dotty Neal, who at the time of this article\u27s writing, worked for the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company, in Maryland. The nature of her job and work are described, often in her own words. The second profile is of Ray Murdock, who worked as a sanitary worker, or garbageman, in Boston, MA. Again, the nature of this kind of work is described, often in Murdock\u27s own words. The article shows how much technology has changed in the telecommunications industry, and perhaps how much it hasn\u27t changed in the area of trash collection. This article won a 1971 Sidney Hillman Prize Award for magazine journalism
Part One: Historical Perspective (of the Chesapeake Bay)
Full text linkThis study analyzes the legal problems in the development and management of Chesapeake Bay resources. There are threshold problems of definition - What is Chesapeake Bay? What are its resources? What role does law play in their development and management?
The Historical Perspective traces the political controversies that have involved the Bay since the colonies of Maryland and Virginia were first founded. In a rough sense, it defines the traditional resources of the Bay by isolating occasions when individuals, businesses and governmental bodies found themselves at cross-purposes as to how the Bay was to be used and shared
Religious Freedom and the Church-State Relationship in Maryland
Full text linkMaryland holds the unique and admirable distinction of having been the State whose early history most directly ensured, and whose citizenry was most directly affected by, the first amendment\u27s grant of religious liberty. The Supreme Court\u27s docket is still liberally sprinkled with petitions calling for renewed interpretation of the establishment clause, and Marylanders will soon vote upon a proposed new state constitution with a similar provision - hence, the opportuneness for tracing Maryland\u27s contribution to the cause of toleration and to the principle of church-state separation.
The scope of this article will not extend beyond a sketch of the important events concerning the theme of toleration and its development in Maryland; from a background setting of religious persecution in the early 1600\u27s to the recent cases involving church and state. The solution to the underlying question of interpretation - whether the establishment clause requires complete separation of church and state, or whether it permits nondiscriminatory government participation - will not be attempted, although a conclusion will be offered
Comments and Casenotes: To Kill a Mockingbird - Star Decisis and M\u27Naghten in Maryland
Full text linkThere are certain pillars of jurisprudence which, despite the erosive elements of time and progress, remain sacred. After more than a century of judicial dialogue the venerable M\u27Naghten Rule survives as the prevailing test to determine criminal responsibility. The rule states: To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong
Punitive Damages: Punishment of an Insured Defendant?, Carroway v. Johnson
Full text linkThe plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile collision and was awarded a judgment in the amount of 1,500 punitive damages. The defendant\u27s insurance company had refused to defend her in that action or to pay the judgment obtained, relying upon an employee exclusion clause in the policy. The plaintiff thereupon sued the defendant on the judgment, this time joining the insurer as a co-defendant, and won a verdict to recover against the insurer the aforesaid amount. The insurance company appealed, questioning its liability for punitive damages