The Emperor Has No Clothes: Confronting the DC Circuit’s Usurpation of SEC Rulemaking Authority

In The Emperor Has No Clothes: Confronting the D.C. Circuit’s Usurpation of SEC Rulemaking Authority, Professor James D. Cox of Duke University School of Law & Benjamin J.C. Baucom, recent law clerk to Justice Don R. Willett of the Supreme Court of Texas, argue “that the level of review invoked by the D.C. Circuit in Business Roundtable and its earlier decisions is dramatically inconsistent with the standard enacted by Congress.” They conclude “that the D.C. Circuit has assumed for itself a role opposed to the one Congress prescribed for courts reviewing SEC rules.

Scope of the Scope

To many of us the stethoscope is just a diagnostic tool. This essay puts a twist on this idea and demonstrates how a stethoscope can be used as a teaching instrument for sharing information about findings with patients and their families

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT - VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST LIQUOR IMPORTS

A Michigan statute prohibited local dealers from selling beer manufactured in a state designated by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, acting pursuant to statutory standards, as one which by its laws discriminated against Michigan-made beer. Because Indiana was one of ten states so designated, an Indiana brewing company filed a bill in the federal court to enjoin enforcement of the Michigan statute as unconstitutional under the interstate commerce, equal protection and due process clauses of the Federal Constitution. Held, that the bill should be dismissed, since the statute, even though discriminating among importers, was a valid enactment under the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution. Indiana Brewing Co., Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission of Michigan, (U.S. 1939) 59 S. Ct. 254, affirming (D. C. Mich. 1938) 21 F. Supp. 969

NEGLIGENCE - PROXIMATE CAUSE - WHEN CONDITION CREATED BY PRIOR OF SUCCESSIVE NEGLIGENT ACTS MAY BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

A railroad\u27s employee negligently allowed plaintiff\u27s intestate to board the wrong train and then put her off at an intermediate station to await the proper train. Coming from the waiting room later, preparatory to boarding the right train, intestate fell on the waiting room steps and suffered fatal injuries. Plaintiff sued the railroad. Held, that the employee\u27s negligence was the proximate cause of intestate\u27s injuries and that the employer railroad is liable. Louisville & N. R.R. v. Maddox, 236 Ala. 594, 183 So. 849 (1938)

INSURANCE -- EFFECT OF THE PASSENGER-FOR-HIRE CLAUSES ON SCOPE OF PROTECTION UNDER AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICIES

Quite common in automobile policies insuring against risks of fire, theft, collision, personal liability, etc., from the use of the automobile is a provision either effecting a termination of the policy or excluding the particular loss from the coverage of the policy if or when the automobile is used to carry passengers for hire or consideration. The full purport of this type passenger clause is unfortunately too often not realized by the insured person until he is met with a loss, unforeseen and against which he believed himself to be protected. This comment, then, will attempt an analysis of the common types of passenger clause as to the possible and probable effects upon the practical scope of protection offered by the policy. First, it will be concerned with characterizing the passenger for consideration as he is contemplated in the policy. Second, it will consider the form of the passenger clause as affecting the insured\u27s protection