Search results for: "n" (3741 results)
YALE L.J. 27, 60 n.170 (1979) (clarifying the relevant statutory language). 21. 42 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(1)(A). 22. See 45 C.F.R. § 90.3(b)(1) (2012
could interfere with internal firm decisionmaking processes). 52. See WANG & STEINBERG, supra note 15, § 2.3.1, at 32 n.8; Stephen Bainbridge, The
149 THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM N O V E M B E R 1 8 , 2 0 1 9 Small-Donor-Based Campaign-Finance Reform and Political Polarization
Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON. 1 (1960). As to Demsetz’s reliance on Coase’s work, see Demsetz, supra note 2, at 349 & n.1. 30. See Coase, supra note 29
129. Dudley & Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. at 288 n.17. 130. JASPERS, supra note 38, at 31. 131. Id. The translation in the text is my own; Ashton prefers
Id. at 26-27 (citing Henry M. Hart, Jr. & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 120-21 (William N
nuanced professional judgment, see infra Section III.C. Journalists do n… Jacob Poushter, 40% of Millennials OK with Limiting Speech Offensive to
fault” pool proposal that 52. Cf. Porat, supra note 1, at 111 n.83 (discussing the rarity of applications of market share liability, equivalent to
interpretations, the Court remarked that n any case such executive branch interpretations are entitled to great weight. This is peculiarly true here where
11 (Breyer, J., dissenting). 38. UARG, slip op. at 24 n. 8. 39. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 143-56 (2000). 40. See