117,339 research outputs found
The year’s work in stylistics 2009
No full textAt a recent conference on the linguistics of English (ISLE, Freiburg, 2008) I was
surprised by the number of talks on topics that for me were clearly related to stylistics.
My surprise was not that stylistics papers should be so prevalent at a linguistics conference
but that the presenters of these papers seemed not to consider their work as primarily
stylistic in nature. Most positioned themselves as historical linguists or sociolinguists
and presented their work as contributions to historical linguistics and sociolinguistics
respectively, despite the fact that all of them were concerned with aspects of style. Along
with a number of PALA colleagues, I gave a paper in a dedicated stylistics strand, though
in retrospect it now seems that it would perhaps have been more valuable to have integrated
our explicitly stylistic papers into the conference generally; after all, the interest
in stylistics was clearly there, even if it was not designated as such
Mcintyre, M N, 1410588
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/403563Surname: MCINTYRE. Given Name(s) or Initials: M N. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: 1410588. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: V-1148.224987
Item: [2016.0049.35856] "Mcintyre, M N, 1410588
The Meaning of McIntyre
No full textWhen certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.
This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as establishing new constitutional restraints on state court exercises of personal jurisdiction, or as resolving previously open questions in favor of a more restrictive approach. These opinions misread the Justices’ opinions in McIntyre. In particular, there has been confusion about Justice Breyer’s concurrence, which explicitly disagreed with Justice Kennedy’s reasoning and was premised on a narrow understanding of the factual record in McIntyre. Many lower court decisions, however, correctly recognize that the fractured McIntyre decision does not mandate new constitutional restrictions on personal jurisdiction
The Meaning of McIntyre
No full textWhen certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.
This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as establishing new constitutional restraints on state court exercises of personal jurisdiction, or as resolving previously open questions in favor of a more restrictive approach. These opinions misread the Justices’ opinions in McIntyre. In particular, there has been confusion about Justice Breyer’s concurrence, which explicitly disagreed with Justice Kennedy’s reasoning and was premised on a narrow understanding of the factual record in McIntyre. Many lower court decisions, however, correctly recognize that the fractured McIntyre decision does not mandate new constitutional restrictions on personal jurisdiction
The Future of Internet-Related Personal Jurisdiction After Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. McIntyre v. Nicastro
No full textFor the past two decades, courts have struggled with the question of how Internet-related contacts should be treated in the personal jurisdiction analysis. Some courts have utilized the traditional minimum contacts framework of International Shoe v. Washington , while others have devised new tests to accommodate this technological evolution. So when the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two personal jurisdiction cases last term— Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. McIntyre v. Nicastro — many believed these unsettled questions of Internet related personal jurisdiction would finally be resolved. Disappointingly for litigants, lower courts, and academics, however, Goodyear and McIntyre give little guidance about the future of personal jurisdiction in our virtual world
The Lay of the Land: Examining the Three Opinions in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
No full textIt was a long time coming The Supreme Courts decisions last Term in J McIntyre Machinery Ltd v Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown ended a twodecade highcourt hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction In McIntyre the more controversial of the two the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer McIntyre lacks a majority opinion however Instead we have a fourJustice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy a threeJustice dissent authored by Justice Ginsburg and a scaletipping concurrence written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justice Alito This article for the South Carolina Law Reviews symposium on McIntyre and Goodyear examines the three McIntyre opinions It argues that McIntyre should not be read to impose significant new restraints on jurisdiction Although there are aspects of Justice Kennedys plurality that suggest a more restrictive approach Justice Breyers concurrence explicitly rejects Justice Kennedys reasoning Justice Breyer does agree that jurisdiction was not proper in McIntyre but that conclusion is premised on a very narrow understanding of the factual record Correctly understood Justice Breyers approach would allow jurisdiction in a similar case even one where only a single sale is ultimately made to an instate purchaser provided the record is slightly more developed on the presence of potential customers in the forum state In terms of the overarching legal principles Justice Breyers concurrence has more in common with Justice Ginsburgs dissent than Justice Kennedys pluralit
The Lay of the Land: Examining the Three Opinions in J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
No full textIt was a long time coming. The Supreme Court\u27s decisions last Term in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown ended a two-decade high-court hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction. In McIntyre, the more controversial of the two, the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer. McIntyre lacks a majority opinion, however. Instead we have a four-Justice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy, a three-Justice dissent authored by Justice Ginsburg, and a scale-tipping concurrence written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justice Alito.
This article for the South Carolina Law Review\u27s symposium on McIntyre and Goodyear examines the three McIntyre opinions. It argues that McIntyre should not be read to impose significant new restraints on jurisdiction. Although there are aspects of Justice Kennedy\u27s plurality that suggest a more restrictive approach, Justice Breyer\u27s concurrence explicitly rejects Justice Kennedy\u27s reasoning. Justice Breyer does agree that jurisdiction was not proper in McIntyre, but that conclusion is premised on a very narrow understanding of the factual record. Correctly understood, Justice Breyer\u27s approach would allow jurisdiction in a similar case -- even one where only a single sale is ultimately made to an in-state purchaser -- provided the record is slightly more developed on the presence of potential customers in the forum state. In terms of the overarching legal principles, Justice Breyer\u27s concurrence has more in common with Justice Ginsburg\u27s dissent than Justice Kennedy\u27s plurality
Goble and McIntyre
No full textAircraft A10-3 of the Seaplane Flight based at Point Cook. It is a Fairy III D Seaplane, one of 6 of the type supplied to the Naval Aviation service. The aircraft was used in a round Australia flight by Wing Commander S. V. Goble and Flight Lt. I. E. McIntyre during 1924.Unknown.Date:1924-0
Orbicular Nebulosae
No full textThe Orbicular Nebulosae project explores how visual artists articulate big bang concepts around quantum physics and the sub atomic act of creation. McIntyre's research thematic focused on the act of drawing and the physical properties of paper and ink as a catalyst for investigating the paradox of how high tech concepts can be explained with low tech methodologies. McIntyre was one of 7 European artists invited to participate in an exhibition at the Charles V Palace in Lecce, Italy in 2012.
Project curated by Guglielmo Greco with catalogue texts by Vito Caiti and Richard Demarc
Research dissemination - Reporting and sharing your research
No full textBefore you begin to disseminate your research; it’s worth taking a few steps to make sure you get the process right! Professor Ellen McIntyre, Director of PHCRIS, offers some useful tips on spreading the word about your research
- …
