Workmen\u27s Compensation—Suicide

Graham v. Nassau & Suffolk Lighting Co ., 308 N. Y. 140, 123 N. E. 2d 813 (1954)

Workmen\u27s Compensation—Reimbursement From Special Fund

Mastrodonato v. Pfaundler Co., 307 N. Y. 592, 123 N. E. 2d 83 (1954)

Searching for videos on Apple iPad and iPhone

In this demonstration we introduce our content-based video search system which runs as an app on the Apple iPad or iPhone. Our work on video search is motivated by the need to introduce content-based video search techniques, which are currently the preserve of the research community, to the larger YouTube generation. It was with this in mind, that we have developed a simple but engaging content based video search engine which uses an iPad or iPhone app as the front-end user interface. Our app supports the three common modes for content-based video search: text search, concept search and image-similarity search. Our iPad system was evaluated as part of the TRECVid 2010 evaluation campaign where we compared the performance of novice versus expert users

Workmen\u27s Compensation—Hearsay Evidence

Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co., 308 N. Y. 44, 123 N. E. 2d 632 (1954)

Criminal Law—Procedure; Appeal

People v. Fromen, 308 N. Y. 324, 125 N. E. 2d 591 (1955); People v. Blakeslee, 308 N. Y. 289, 125 N. E. 2d 573 (1955)

Domestic Relations—Right of Strangers to Attack Foreign Divorce Decree

Estate of Englund, __ Wash. __, 277 P. 2d 717 (1954)

Missing The Point With Point-Source Addition Semantics: Section 511 Of The Clean Water Act Exempts Interconnected Waterways From Section 402 Jurisdiction, Period?

As environmental law continues to mature in the second-generation since the enactment of several major federal environmental statutes in the 1970s, two important implications from its current stage of development must be derived. First, second-generation judicial interpretation of these statutes no longer occurs in a vacuum: the applicability of the statute\u27s internal provisions to a particular subset of factual circumstances has, in all likelihood, already been litigated. Second, and corollary to the first implication, the first-generation\u27s establishment of precedent for interpreting each of a respective statute\u27s provisions was a necessary prerequisite for what should now be the overriding purpose of the statute\u27s second- generation maturation: the articulation of jurisdictional relationships amongst federal environmental statutes. Unless this second-generation maturation occurs, environmental law will not evolve into a comprehensive legal regime but will remain the same confusing morass of isolated and contradictory statutes that the first-generation of statutory interpretation necessarily laid the foundation to overcome. Recent judicial interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) threatens to revert environmental law to its first-generation of development. This interpretation completely fails to address the CWA\u27s jurisdictional relationship with other federal environmental statutes; it correspondingly also fails to address whether almost identical factual circumstances have already been fully litigated under federal environmental law. Regrettably, this recent litigation has granted legitimacy to a completely novel interpretation of the CWA. Thus, an area of environmental law that has been well settled for decades has been shattered: the first-generation of environmental law has begun again, threatening to stunt the development of the field in an endless feedback loop involving the interpretation of fragmented provisions of discrete environmental statutes as if each occupied completely independent fiefdoms. To understand how the CWA has recently been distorted, and to map the proper road for the second-generation of environmental law\u27s development, it is first necessary to look through the near-distant mirror of the statute\u27s infancy period

Workmen\u27s Compensation—Silicosis—Date of Disability

Dunleavy v. Walsh, Connelly, Senior & Palmer, 309 N. Y. 8, 127 N. E. 2d 727 (1955)