6 S.Ct.

1132 Page 1
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

6 S.Ct. 1132 Page 2
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)

Supreme Court of the United States 371 Taxation

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 371III Property Taxes
v. 371III(G) Place of Taxation
SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO.FN1 371k2402 k. Real Property. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 371k285)
FN1. S.C. 18 Fed. Rep. 385.
Taxation 371 2442
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
v. 371 Taxation
CENTRAL PAC. R. CO. 371III Property Taxes
SAME 371III(H) Levy and Assessment
v. 371III(H)2 Assessors and Proceedings for
SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. Assessment
Filed May 10, 1886. 371k2439 Authority to Make Assessment
371k2442 k. Railroads. Most Cited Cases
West Headnotes (Formerly 371k317(3.1), 371k317(3))
Const. art. 13, § 2, provides that “land and improvements
Railroads 320 4 thereon shall be separately assessed,” and Pol.Code, §
3617 (repealed. See Revenue and Taxation Code, §§ 103
320 Railroads et seq., 211, 1056, 1057), declares that improvements
320I Control and Regulation in General include fences. Const. art. 13, § 10, provides that the state
320k4 k. Status of Railroads and Railroad board of equalization shall assess the “franchise, roadway,
Companies. Most Cited Cases roadbed, rails, and rolling stock of all railroads operated
in more than one county.” Pol.Code, § 3664 (repealed
1935), provides that “the depots, station grounds, shops,
Taxation 371 2606
buildings, and gravel beds shall be assessed by the
assessors of the county where situated.” Held, that fences
371 Taxation along a railroad are improvements, and as such are to be
371III Property Taxes assessed by the local authorities, and the state board of
371III(H) Levy and Assessment equalization has no authority to assess them.
371III(H)6 Assessment Rolls or Books
371k2606 k. Partial Invalidity. Most Cited
Taxation 371 2850
Cases
(Formerly 371k441)
An assessment of a railroad made by the state board of 371 Taxation
equalization, which includes fences which are taxable as 371III Property Taxes
improvements by the local authorities, is void in toto, and 371III(K) Collection and Enforcement Against
cannot be made the basis of any judgment for taxes where Persons or Personal Property
there is no means of separating the value of the fences 371III(K)2 Summary Remedies and Actions
illegally assessed from the aggregate valuation of the 371k2848 Actions for Unpaid Taxes
property. 371k2850 k. Nature and Form. Most
Cited Cases
(Formerly 371k584)
Railroads 320 4
Where an action is brought by the state against a railroad
company for the recovery of taxes, and the plaintiff seeks
320 Railroads judgment for an entire tax arising upon an assessment of
320I Control and Regulation in General different kinds of property as a unit, such assessment,
320k4 k. Status of Railroads and Railroad including property not legally assessable by the state
Companies. Most Cited Cases board of equalization, and the part of the tax assessed
against the latter property not being separable from the
Taxation 371 2402

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
other part, an assessment of that kind is invalid, and the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
These actions, which were argued together, were brought
to recover unpaid taxes assessed against the several
railroad corporations, defendants, under the laws of the
State of California. The main-almost the only-questions
discussed by counsel in the elaborate arguments related to
the constitutionality of the taxes. This court, in its opinion
passed by these questions, and decided the cases upon the
questions whether under the constitution and laws of
California, the fences on the line of the railroads should
have been valued and assessed, if at all, by the local
officers, or by the State Board of Equalization; whether,
on the record, the assessments and taxation upon the
fences are separable from the rest of the assessment and
taxation; and what was the effect of the record upon the
rights of the State and the county.
One of the points made and discussed at length in the
brief of counsel for defendants in error was that
“Corporations are persons within the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.” Before argument
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: The court does not
wish to hear argument on the question whether the
provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person
within its juridiction the equal protection of the laws,
applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it
does.
Mr. D. M. Delmas and Mr. A. L. Rhodes for Santa Clara
County. On the points on which the decision turned, Mr.
Delmas said as follows:
I now take leave of the Federal questions in this cause,
and proceed to examine briefly some minor points which
include no question of constitutional law, but simply refer
to modes of procedure under the statutes of the State.
Objection is made to a recovery here because it is claimed
that the fences on the line of the road were improperly
included in the assessment of the roadway, because, in the
first place, they were not proved to be the property of
defendant, and secondly, they were not within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Equalization. It is said that the
plaintiff ought to have proved that the fences belonged to
defendant. The prima facie case made out by the
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
plaintiff's documents establishes everything necessary to
its recovery-among which is that the property assessed
belongs to the taxpayers assessed. Besides, as a general
rule, fences belong to the railroads whose right of way
they enclose. Civ. Code, § 485. The defendants, in
rebuttal of plaintiff's prima facie case, remain standing in
full force.
Such fences are not enumerated by the Code among the
things assessable by local assessors. These are, “the
depots, station grounds, shops, buildings, and gravel
beds.” Political Code § 3664. Obviously, then, unless the
legislature intended they should not be taxed, they are to
be assessed by the Board of Equalization as a part of the
roadway.
Fences built upon the line of the roadway are a part of the
roadway as necessary to its protection. As much so as the
railing of a bridge is a part of the bridge, or the
framework of a tunnel is part of the tunnel. Such as
always been the understanding of the law in California,
and the fences have always been assessed by the Board of
Equalization.
I have never been able to grasp the proposition that fences
are no part of the railroad which they enclose. If the
defendant made a conveyanve of “its railroad from San
Francisco to San José” would not the fences pass by the
deed? Clearly as much so as a sale of my garden would
convey the fence which encloses the garden.
E. C. Marshall, for all the plaintiffs in error.
Wm. M. Evarts, Geo. F. Edmunds, and S. W. Sanderson,
for defendants in error.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the
District of California.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the
court.
**1132 *397 These several actions were brought-the first
one in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, the others in the Superior Court of Fresno
County, in the same state-for the recovery of certain
county and State taxes, claimed to be due from the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the Central
Pacific Railroad Company under assessments made by the
State Board of Equalization upon their respective
franchises, road ways, road beds, rails, and rolling-stock.
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
In the action by Santa Clara County the amount claimed is
**1133 $13,366.53 for the fiscal year of 1882. For that
sum, with five per cent. penalty, interest at the rate of two
per cent. per month from December 27, 1882, cost of
advertising, and ten per cent. for attorney's fees, judgment
is asked against the Southern Pacific *398 Railroad
Company. In the other action against the same company
the amount claimed is $5,029.27 for the fiscal year of
1881, with five per cent. added for non-payment of taxes
and costs of collection. In the action against the Central
Pacific Railroad Company judgment is asked for
$25,950.50 for the fiscal year of 1881, with like penalty
and costs of collection.
The answer in each case puts in issue all the material
allegations of the complaint, and sets up various special
defenses, to which reference will be made further on.
With its answer the defendant, in each case, filed a
petition, with a proper bond, for the removal of the action
into the Circuit Court of the United States for the District,
as one arising under the Constitution and laws of the
United States. The right of removal was recognized by the
state court, and the action proceeded in the circuit court.
Each case-the parties having filed a written stipulation
waiving a jury-was tried by the court. There was a special
finding of facts, upon which judgment was entered in
each case for the defendant. The general question to be
determined is, whether the judgment can be sustained
upon all, or either, of the grounds upon which the
defendants rely.
The case as made by the pleadings and the special finding
of facts is as follows:
By an act of Congress approved July 27, 1866, 14 Stat.
292, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company was
created, with power to construct and maintain, by certain
designated routes, a continuous railroad and telegraph line
from Springfield, Missouri, to the Pacific. For the
purpose-which is avowed by Congress-of facilitating the
construction of the line, and thereby securing the safe and
speedy transportation of mails, troops, munitions of war,
and public stores, a right of way over the public domain
was given to the company, and a liberal grant of the
public lands was made to it. The railroad so to be
constructed, and every part of it was declared to be a post
route and military road, subject to the use of the United
States for postal, military, naval, and all other government
service, and to such regulations as Congress might impose
for restricting the charges for government transportation.
By the *399 18th section of the act, the Southern Pacific
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
Railroad Company-a corporation previously organized
under a general statute of California, passed May 20,
1861, Stat. Cal. 1861, p. 607-was authorized to connect
with the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad at such point, near
the boundary line of that State, as the former company
deemed most suitable for a railroad to San Francisco, with
‘uniform gauge and rate of freight or fare with said road;’
and in consideration thereof, and “to aid in its
construction,” the act declared that it should have similar
grants of land, “subject to all the conditions and
limitations” provided in said act of Congress, “and shall
be required to construct its road on like regulations, as to
time and manner, with the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad.”
§§ 1, 2, 3, 11 and 18.
In November, 1866, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
Company and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company
filed in the office of the Secretary of the Interior their
respective acceptances of the act.
By an act of the legislature of California, passed April 4,
1870, to aid in giving effect to the act of congress relating
to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, it was
declared that:
“To enable the said company to more fully and
completely comply with and perform the requirements,
provisions, and conditions of the said act of Congress, and
all other acts of Congress now in force, or which may
hereafter be enacted, the State of California hereby
consents to said act, and the said company, its successors
and assigns, are hereby authorized to change the line of its
railroad so as to reach the eastern boundary line of the
State of California by such route as the company shall
determine to be the most practicable, and to file new and
amendatory articles of association, **1134 and the right,
power, and privilege is hereby granted to, conferred upon,
and vested in them to construct, maintain, and operate by
steam or other power the said railroad and telegraph line
mentioned in said acts of Congress, hereby confirming to,
and vesting in, the said company, its successors and
assigns all the rights, privileges, franchises, power and
authority conferred upon, *400 granted to, or vested in
said company by the said acts of Congress, and any act of
Congress which may be hereafter enacted.”
Subsequently, by the act of March 3, 1871, 116 Stat. 573,
Congress incorporated the Texas Pacific Railroad
Company, with power to construct and maintain a
continuous railroad and telegraph line from Marshall, in
the State of Texas, to a point at or near El Paso, thence
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
through New Mexico and Arizona to San Diego, pursuing,
as near as might be, the thirty-second parallel of latitude.
To aid in its construction, Congress gave it, also, the right
of way over the public domain, and made to it a liberal
grant of public lands. The 19th section provided:
“That the Texas Pacific Railroad Company shall be, and it
is hereby, declared to be a military and post road; and for
the purpose of insuring the carrying of the mails, troops,
munitions of war, supplies, and stores of the United
States, no act of the company nor any law of any State or
Territory shall impede, delay, or prevent the said company
from performing its obligations to the United States in
that regard: Provided, That said road shall be subject to
the use of the United States for postal, military, and all
other governmental services, at fair and reasonable rates
of compensation, not to exceed the price paid by private
parties for the same kind of service, and the government
shall at all times have the preference in the use of the
same for the purpose aforesaid.”
The twenty-third section of that act has special reference
to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and is as
follows:
“Sec. 23. That, for the purpose of connecting the Texas
Pacific Railroad with the city of San Francisco, the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company of California is
hereby authorized (subject to the laws of California) to
construct a line of railroad from a point at or near
Tehacapa Pass, by way of Los Angeles, to the Texas
Pacific Railroad, at or near the Colorado River, with the
same rights, grants, and privileges, and subject to the
same limitations, restrictions, and conditions, as were
granted to said Southern Pacific Railroad Company of
California by the act of July 27, 1866: provided, however,
that this section shall in no way *401 affect or impair the
rights, present or prospective, of the Atlantic and Pacific
Railroad Company, or any other railroad company.”
Under the authority of this legislation, Federal and State,
the Southern Pacific Railroad Company constructed a line
of railroad from San Francisco, connecting with the Texas
and Pacific Railroad (formerly the Texas Pacific Railroad)
at Sierra Banca, in Texas; and with other railroads it is
operated as one continuous line (except for that part of the
route occupied by the Central Pacific Railroad) from
Marshall, Texas, to San Francisco. It is stated in the
record that the Southern Pacific Railroad Company of
California, since the commencement of this action, has
completed its road to the Colorado River, at or near the
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
Needles, to connect with the Atlantic and Pacific
Railroad, and that with the latter road it constitutes a
continuous line from Springfield, Missouri, to the Pacific,
except as to the connection, for a relatively short distance,
over the road of the Central Pacific Railroad Company.
On the 17th of December, 1877, the said Southern Pacific
Railroad Company, and other railroad corporations, then
existing under the laws of California, were legally
consolidated, and a new corporation thereby formed,
under the name of the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company, the present defendant in error, 59.30 miles of
whose road is in Santa Clara County and 17.93 miles in
Fresno County.
On the 1st of April, 1875, this company was indebted to
divers persons in large sums of money advanced to
construct and equip its road. To secure **1135 that
indebtedness, it executed on that day a mortgage for
$32,520,000 on its road, franchises, rolling-stock and
appurtenances, and on a large number of tracts of land, in
different counties of California, aggregating over eleven
million acres. These lands were granted to the company
by Congress under the above-mentioned acts, and are
used for agricultural, grazing, and other purposes not
connected with the business of the railroad. Of those
patented, 3,138 acres are in Santa Clara County and
18,789 acres in Fresno County. When these proceedings
were instituted no part of its above mortgage debt had
been paid, except the accruing *402 interest and
$1,632,000 of the principal, leaving outstanding against it
$30,898,000.
In the year 1852 California, by legislative enactment,
granted a right of way through that State to the United
States for the purpose of constructing a railroad from the
Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean-declaring that the interests
of California, as well as the whole Union, “require the
immediate action of the Government of the United States,
for the construction of a national thoroughfare, connecting
the navigable waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,
for the purpose of the national safety, in the event of war,
and to promote the highest commercial interests of the
Republic.” Stat. Cal. 1852, p. 150. By an act passed July
1, 1862, 19 Stat. 489, §1, 8, Congress incorporated the
Union Pacific Railroad Company, with power to construct
and maintain a continuous railroad and telegraph line to
the western boundary of what was then Nevada territory,
“there to meet and connect with the line of the Central
Pacific Railroad Company of California.”. The declared
object of extending government aid to these enterprises
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
was to effect the construction of a railroad and telegraph
line from the Missouri River to the Pacific, which, for all
purposes of communication, travel, and transportation, so
far as the public and the General Government are
concerned, should be operated ‘as one connected,
continuous line.” Ibid. §§ 6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18.
In 1864 the State of California passed an act to aid in
carrying out the provisions of this act of Congress, the
first section of which declared that:
“To enable said company more fully and completely to
comply with and perform the provisions and conditions of
said act of Congress, the said company, their successors
and assigns, are hereby authorized and empowered, and
the right, power, and privilege is hereby granted to,
conferred upon, and vested in them, to construct,
maintain, and operate the said railroad and telegraph line,
not only in the State of California, but also in the said
Territories lying east of and between said State and the
Missouri River, with such branches and extensions of said
railroad and telegraph line, or either of them, as said
company may deem necessary or proper, and also the
right of way for said railroad and telegraph line over any
lands belonging to *403 this State, and on, over, and
along any streets, roads, highways, rivers, streams, water,
and water courses, but the same to be so constructed as
not to obstruct or destroy the passage or navigation of the
same, and also the right to condemn and appropriate to
the use of said company such private property, rights,
privileges, and franchises as may be proper, necessary, or
convenient for the purposes of said railroad and telegraph,
the compensation therefor to be ascertained and paid
under and by special proceedings, as prescribed in the act
providing for the incorporation of railroad companies,
approved May 20, 1861, and the act supplementary and
amendatory thereof, said company to be subject to all the
laws of this State concerning railroad and telegraph lines,
except that messages and property of the United States, of
this State, and of said company shall have priority of
transportation and transmission over said line of railroad
and telegraph, hereby confirming to and vesting in said
company all the rights, privileges, franchises, power, and
authority conferred upon, granted to, and vested in said
company by said act of Congress, hereby repealing all
laws and parts of laws inconsistent or in conflict with the
provisions of this act, or the rights and privileges herein
granted.”
In 1870, the Central Pacific Railroad Company of
California and the Western **1136 Pacific Railroad
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 6
Company formed themselves into one corporation under
the name of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, the
defendant in one of these actions, 61.06 miles of whose
road is in Fresno County. The company complied with the
several acts of congress, and there is in operation a
continuous line of railway from the Missouri River to the
Pacific ocean, the Central Pacific Railroad Company
owning and operating the portion thereof between Ogden,
in the Territory of Utah, and San Francisco.
When the present action was instituted against this
company the United States had and now have a lien,
created by the acts of Congress of 1862 and 1864, for
$30,000,000, with a large amount of interest, upon its
road, rolling-stock, fixtures and franchises; and there were
also outstanding bonds for a like amount issued by the
company prior to January 1, 1875, and secured by a
mortgage upon the same property.
Such were the relations which these two companies held
to *404 the United States and to the State when the
assessments in question were made for purposes of
taxation.
It is necessary now to refer to those provisions of the
constitution and laws of the State which, it is claimed,
sustain these assessments.
The constitution of California, adopted in 1879, exempts
from taxation growing crops, property used exclusively
for public schools, and such as may belong to the United
States, or to that State, or to any of her county or
municipal corporations, and declares that the legislature
“may provide, except in the case of credits secured by
mortgage or trust deed, for a reduction from credits of
debts due to bona fide residents” of the State. It is
provided in the first section of article XIII that, with these
exceptions-“all property in the State, not exempt under
the laws of the United States, shall be taxed in proportion
to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law. The
word ‘property,’ as used in this article and section, is
hereby declared to include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks,
dues, franchises, and all other matters and things, real,
personal, and mixed, capable of private ownership.”
The fourth section of the same article provides:
“A mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or other obligation
by which a debt is secured, shall, for the purposes of
assessment and taxation, be deemed and treated as an
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
interest in the property affected thereby. Except as to
railroad and other quasi public corporations, in case of
debts so secured, the value of the property affected by
such mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or obligation, less
the value of such security, shall be assessed and taxed to
the owner of the property, and the value of such security
shall be assessed and taxed to the owner thereof, in the
county, city, or district in which the property affected
thereby is situate. The taxes so levied shall be a lien upon
the property and security, and may be paid by either party
to such security; if paid by the owner of the security, the
tax so levied upon the property affected thereby shall
become a part of the debt so secured; if the owner of the
property shall pay the tax so levied on such security, it
shall constitute a payment thereon, and to the extent of
such payment, a full discharge thereof: provided, That if
any such security or indebtedness shall be *405 paid by
any such debtor or debtors, after assessment and before
the tax levy, the amount of such levy may likewise be
retained by such debtor or debtors, and shall be computed
according to the tax levy of the preceding year.”
The ninth section makes provision for the election of a
State Board of Equalization, “whose duty it shall be to
equalize the valuation of the taxable property of the
several counties in the State for the purpose of taxation.”
The boards of supervisors of the several counties
constitute boards of equalization for their respective
counties, and they equalize the valuation of the taxable
property therein for purposes of taxation-assessments,
whether by the state or county boards, to “conform to the
true value in money of the property” contained in the
assessment roll.
The tenth section declares:
“All property, except as hereinafter in this section **1137
provided, shall be assessed in the county, city, city and
county, town, township, or district in which it is situated,
in the manner prescribed by law. The franchise, roadway,
road-bed, rails, and rolling-stock of all railroads
operated in more than one county in this State shall be
assessed by the State Board of Equalization at their actual
value, and the same shall be apportioned to the counties,
cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts
in which such railroads are located, in proportion to the
number of miles of railway laid in such counties, cities
and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts.”
The assessments in question, it is contended, were made
in conformity with these constitutional provisions, and
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 7
with what is known as § 3664 of the Political Code of
California. That section made it the duty of the State
Board of Equalization, on or before the first Monday in
May in each year, to “assess the franchise, roadway, road-
bed, rails, and rolling-stock of railroads operated in more
than one county-to which class belonged the defendants.
It required every corporation of that class, by certain
officers, or by such officer as the State Board should
designate, to furnish the board with a sworn statement
showing, among other things, in detail, for the year
ending March 1, the whole number of miles of railway
owned, operated, or leased by it in the State, the value
thereof *406 per mile, and all of its property of every kind
located in the State; the number and value of its engines,
passenger, mail, express, baggage, freight, and other cars,
or property used in operating and repairing its railway in
the State, and on railways which are parts of lines
extending beyond the limits of the state. It is also directed
that “the said property shall be assessed at its actual
value;” that the “assessment shall be made upon the entire
railway within the State, and shall include the right of
way, road-bed, track, bridges, culverts, and rolling-stock;”
and that “the depots, station grounds, shops, buildings,
and gravel beds shall be assessed by the assessors of the
county where situated, as other property.” It further
declares:
“On or before the fifteenth day of May, in each year, said
board shall transmit to the county assessor of each county
through which any railway, operated in more than one
county, may run, a statement showing the length of the
main track or tracks of such railway within the county,
together with a description of the whole of said tracks
within the county including the right of way by metes and
bounds, or other description sufficient for identification,
and the assessed value per mile of the same, as fixed by a
pro rata distribution per mile of the assessed value of the
whole franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling-
stock of such railway within this State. Said statement
shall be entered on the assessment roll of the county. At
the first meeting of the board of supervisors, after such
statement is received by the county assessor, they shall
make and cause to be entered in the proper record-book
an order stating and declaring the length of the main
track, and the assessed value of such railway lying in each
city, town, township, school-district, or lesser taxing
district in their county, through which such railway runs,
as fixed by the State Board of Equalization, which shall
constitute the taxable value of said property for taxable
purposes in such city, town, township, school, road, or
other district.” Stat. Cal. 1881, Ch. 73, § 1, page 82.
6 S.Ct. 1132 Page 8
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)

given in evidence, and there was introduced no written

These companies, within due time, filed with the state
board the detailed statement required by that section.
At the trials below, no record of assessment against the
respective defendants, as made by the State Board, was
evidence of the *407 assessment except an official
communication from the State Board to each of the
assessors of Santa Clara and Fresno Counties, called, in
the special findings, the assessment roll for the particular
county. The roll for Fresno county, in 1881, relating to the
Southern Pacific Railroad Company, is as follows:

Original - Assessment Book of the Property of Fresno County for the Year 1881 - Assessed to
All Known Owners or Claimants, and when Unknown to Unknown Owners or Claimants.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.
Real estate other than city and
Tax-payer's town lots. Subdivision of sections
Name. or metes and bounds.
City and town lots. Improvements.
Personal property.

OFFICE OF THE
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Southern SACRAMENTO, MAY 14, 1881.
Pacific To W. H. McKenzie, Assessor of
Railroad Fresno County--SIR: The state board
Company. of equalization on the second day
of May, 1881, assessed, for the year
1881, the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company for its franchise, roadway,
road-bed, rails, and rollingstock,
in the state of California, in
the aggregate sum of $11,739,915.
The entire line of main track of
said railroad of said company in
the said state is 711.51 miles.
The length of the main track of
said railway in Fresno county is
17.93 miles.
The description of the whole of
the main track of the railway of
the said Southern Pacific Railroad
Company, and the right of way
for the same, in the county of
Fresno, is as follows: Beginning

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

6 S.Ct. 1132 Page 9
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)

at the town of Huron, and running

easterly in the direction of Goshen,
in Tulare county, to the east line
of Fresno county. The assessed
value per mile of said railway, as
fixed by a pro rata distribution per
mile of the assessed value of the
whole franchise, roadway, road-bed,
rails, and rolling stock as such
railway of the said company within
this state is $16,500. The apportionment
of the assessment of
the said franchise, roadway, road-beds,
rails, and rolling stock, by
this board, for and to Fresno
county, is $295,845.
WARREN DUTTON, CHAIRMAN,
M. M. DREW,
D. M. KENFIELD,
T. D. HEISKELL,
State Board of Equalization,
E. W. MASLIN, Clerk.

TABLE CONTINUED
Value of the franchise, roadway, Total value of all property after
road-bed, rails, and rolling stock deductions. (Changes by the
of railroads as apportioned to county boards of equalization to
the county by the state board of be noted in red ink.)
equalization.

$
295,845 602,869

(Duty certified by the Auditor.)

TABLE CONTINUED

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
Total value after equalization by
the state board of equalization. Total tax.
$ $ cts.
602,869
**1139 *408 There were similar rolls in reference to the
Central Pacific Railroad in the same county, for the same
year, and the Southern Pacific in Santa Clara County for
1882. For each of those years the board of supervisors of
the respective counties made an apportionment of the
taxes among the legal subdivisions of such counties.
It is stated in the findings that the delinquent lists for
those years, so far as they related to the taxes in question,
were duly made up in form corresponding with the
original assessment roll; that in pursuance of § 3738 of
the Political Code of California, the board of supervisors
of the respective counties duly passed an order, entered on
the minutes, dispensing with the duplicate assessment roll
for that year; that the controller of the State transmitted a
letter to the tax collector of the county, in pursuance of the
provisions of § 3899 of that Code, directing him to offer
the property for sale but once, and if there were no bona
fide purchasers to withdraw it from sale that the tax
collector, in obedience to the provisions of that section,
transmitted to the controller, with his indorsement thereon
of the action had in the premises, a certified copy of the
entry upon the delinquent list relating to the tax in
question in these several actions; that such indorsement
shows that the tax collector had offered the property for
sale and had withdrawn it because there was no purchaser
for the same; and that the controller, in pursuance of the
provisions of the same section, transmitted to the tax
collector of the county a letter directing him to bring suit.
In each case there were also the following findings:
“The State Board of Equalization, in assessing said value
of said property to and against defendant, assessed the full
cash value of said railroad, roadway, road-bed, rails,
rolling-stock, and franchises, without deducting therefrom
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 10
Remarks.
10,246,78
the value of the mortgage, or any part thereof, given and
existing thereon as aforesaid, to secure the indebtedness
of said company to the holders of said bonds,
notwithstanding they had full knowledge of the existence
of the said mortgage; and in making said assessment the
said State Board of Equalization did not consider or treat
said mortgage as an interest in said property, but assessed
*409 the whole value thereof to the defendant, in the
same manner as if there had been no mortgage thereon.“
“The State Board of Equalization, in making the supposed
assessment of said roadway of defendant, did knowingly
and designedly include in the valuation of said roadway
the value of fences erected upon the line between said
roadway and the land of coterminous proprietors. Said
fences were valued at $300 per mile.”
The special grounds of defense by each of the defendants
were: (1) That its road is a part of a continuous postal and
military route, constructed and maintained under the
authority of the United States, by means in part obtained
from the General Government; that the company having,
with the consent of the state, become subject to the
requirements, conditions, and provisions of the acts of
Congress, it thereby ceased to be merely a State
corporation, and became one of the agencies or
instrumentalities employed by the General Government to
execute its constitutional powers; and that the franchise to
operate a postal and military route, for the transportation
of troops, munitions of war, public stores, and the mails,
being derived from the United States, cannot, without
their consent, be subjected to state taxation. (2) That the
provisions of the constitution and laws of California, in
respect to the assessment for taxation of the property of
railway corporations operating railroads in more than one
county, are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
the Constitution, in so far as they require the assessment
of their property at its full money value, without making
deduction, as in the case of railroads operated in one
county, and of other corporations, and of natural persons,
for the value of the mortgages covering the property
assessed; thus imposing upon the defendant unequal
burdens, and to that extent denying to it the equal
protection of the laws. (3) That what is known as § 3664
**1140 of the Political Code of California, under the
authority of which in part the assessment was made, was
not constitutionally enacted by the legislature, and had not
the force of law. (4) That no valid assessment appears in
fact to have been made by the State Board. (5) That no
interest is recoverable in this action until after judgment.
(6) *410 That the assessment upon which the action is
based is void, because it included property which the
State Board of Equalization had no jurisdiction, under any
circumstances, to assess, and that, as such illegal part was
so blended with the balance that it cannot be separated,
the entire assessment must be treated as a nullity.
The record contains elaborate opinions stating the
grounds upon which judgments were ordered for the
defendants. Mr. Justice Field overruled the first of the
special defenses above named, but sustained the second.
The circuit judge, in addition, held that section 3664 of
the Political Code had not been passed in the mode
required by the state constitution, and consequently was
no part of the law of California. These opinions are
reported as the Santa Clara Railroad Tax Case, in 9
Sawyer, 165, 210; S. C. 18 Fed. Rep. 385.
The propositions embodied in the conclusions reached in
the Circuit Court were discussed with marked ability by
counsel who appeared in this court for the respective
parties. Their importance cannot well be over-estimated;
for they not only involve a construction of the recent
amendments to the National Constitution in their
application to the Constitution and the legislation of a
State, but upon their determination, if it were necessary to
consider them, would depend the system of taxation
devised by that State for raising revenue, from certain
corporations, for the support of her government. These
questions belong to a class which this court should not
decide, unless their determination is essential to the
disposal of the case in which they arise. Whether the
present cases require a decision of them depends upon the
soundness of another proposition, upon which the court
below, in view of its conclusions upon other issues, did
not deem it necessary to pass. We allude to the claim of
the defendant, in each case, that the entire assessment is a
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 11
nullity, upon the ground that the State Board of
Equalization included therein property which it was
without jurisdiction to assess for taxation.
The argument in behalf of the defendant is: That the State
Board knowingly and designedly included in its
assessment of “the franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails,
and rolling-stock” of *411 each company, the value of the
fences erected upon the line between its roadway and the
land of coterminous proprietors; that the fences did not
constitute a part of such roadway, and therefore, could
only be assessed, for taxation by the proper officer of the
several counties in which they were situated; and that an
entire assessment which includes property not assessable
by the State Board against the party assessed, is void, and,
therefore, insufficient to support an action, at least, when-
and such is claimed to be the case here-it does not appear,
with reasonable certainty, from the face of the assessment
or otherwise, what part of the aggregate valuation
represents the property so illegally included therein.
If these positions are tenable, there will be no occasion to
consider the grave questions of constitutional law upon
which the case was determined below; for, in that event,
the judgment can be affirmed upon the ground that the
assessment cannot properly be the basis of a judgment
against the defendant.
That the State Board purposely included in its assessment
and valuation the fences erected on the line between the
railroads and the lands of adjacent **1141 proprietors, at
the rate of $300 per mile, is undoubtedly true: for it is so
stated in the special finding of facts, and that finding must
be taken here to be indisputable. It is equally true that that
tribunal has no general power of assessment, but only
jurisdiction to assess “the franchise, roadway, road-bed,
rails, and rolling-stock” of railroad corporations operating
roads in more than one county, and that all other property
of such corporations, subject to taxation, is assessable
only “in the county, city, city and county, town, township,
or district in which it is situated, in the manner prescribed
by law.” Such is the declaration of the State
constitution. People v. Sacramento County, 59 Cal. 321,
324; article XIII, § 10. It must also be conceded that
“fences” erected on the line between these railroads and
the lands of adjoining proprietors, were improperly
included by the State Board in its assessments, unless they
constituted a part of the “roadway.” Some light is thrown
upon this question by that clause of § 3664 of the Political
Code of California-which, in the view *412 we take of
these cases, may be regarded as having been legally
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
enacted-providing that ‘the depots, station grounds, shops,
buildings, and gravel beds' shall be assessed in the county
where situated as other property. From this it seems, that
there is much of the property daily used in the business of
a railroad operated in more than one county, that is not
assessable by the State Board, but only by the proper
authorities of the municipality where it is situated. So
that, even if it appeared that the fences assessed by the
State Board were the property of the railroad companies,
and not of the adjoining proprietors, they could not be
included in an assessment by that board unless they were
part of the roadway itself; for, as shown, the jurisdiction
of that board is restricted to the assessment of the
“franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling-stock.”
We come back, then, to the vital inquiry, whether the
fences could be assessed under the head of roadway? We
are of opinion that they cannot be regarded as part of the
roadway for purposes of taxation.
The Constitution of California provides that “land and
improvements thereon shall be separately assessed,”
(Article XIII, § 2; and, although that instrument does not
define what are improvements upon land, the Political
Code of the State expressly declares that the term
“improvements” includes “all buildings, structures,
fixtures, fences, and improvements erected upon or
affixed to the land.” § 3617. It would seem from these
provisions that fences erected upon the roadway, even if
owned by the railroad company, must be separately
assessed, as “improvements,” in the mode required in the
case of depots, station grounds, shops, and buildings
owned by the company; namely, by local officers in the
county where they are situated. The same considerations
of public interest or convenience upon which rest existing
regulations for the assessments of depots, station grounds,
shops, and buildings of a railroad company operated in
more than one county would apply equally to the
assessment and valuation for taxation of fences erected
upon the line of railway of the same company.
In San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad Co. v. State
Board of Equalization, 60 Cal. 12, 34, which was an *413
application, on certiorari, to annul certain orders of the
State Board assessing the property of a railroad
corporation, one of the questions was as to the meaning of
the words “road-bed” and “roadway.” The court there
said: “The road-bed is the foundation on which the
superstructure of a railroad rests. Webster. The roadway
is the right of way, which has been held to be the property
liable to taxation. Appeal of N. B. & M. R. R. Co., 32
Cal. 499. The rails in place constitute the superstructure
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 12
resting upon the road-bed.” This definition was approved
in San Francisco v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 63 Cal.
467, 469. In the latter case the question was whether
certain steamers owned by the railroad company, upon
which were laid railroad tracks, and with which its
passenger and freight cars were transported from the
eastern shore of the bay of San Francisco to **1142 its
western shore, where the railway again commenced, were
to be assessed by the city and county of San Francisco, or
by the State Board of Equalization. The contention of the
company was that they constituted a part of its road-bed
or roadway and must, therefore, be assessed by the State
Board. But the Supreme Court of the State held otherwise.
After observing that all the property of the company, other
than its franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling-
stock, was required by the Constitution to be assessed by
the local assessors, the court said: “They are certainly not
the franchise of the defendant corporation. They may
constitute an element to be taken into computation to
arrive at the value of the franchise of such corporation,
but they are not such franchise. It is equally as clear that
they are not rails or rolling-stock. * * * Are they, then,
embraced within the words roadway or road-bed, in the
ordinary and popular acceptation of such words as applied
to railroads? These two words, as applied to common
roads, ordinarily mean the same thing, but as applied to
railroads their meaning is not the same. The road-bed
referred to in § 10, in our judgment, is the bed or
foundation on which the superstructure of the railroad
rests. Such is the definition given by both Worcester and
Webster, and we think it correct. The roadway has a more
extended signification as applied to railroads. In addition
to the part denominated *414 road-bed, the roadway
includes whatever space of ground the company is
allowed by law in which to construct its road-bed and lay
its track. Such space is defined in subdivision 4 of the
17th section and the 20th section of the act ‘to provide for
the incorporation of railroad companies,’ etc., approved
May 20, 1861. Stat. 1861, p. 607; S. F. & N. P. R. Co. v.
State Board, 60 Cal. 12.”
The argument in support of the proposition that these
steamers-constituting, as they did, a necessary link in the
line of the company's railway, and upon which rails were
actually laid for the running of cars-were a part either of
the road-bed or roadway of the railroad, is much more
cogent than the argument that the fences erected upon the
line between a roadway and the lands of adjoining
proprietors are a part of the roadway itself. It seems to the
court that the fences in question are not, within the
meaning of the local law, a part of the roadway for
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
purposes of taxation; but are “improvements” assessable
by the local authorities of the proper county, and,
therefore were improperly included by the State Board in
its valuation of the property of the defendants.
The next inquiry that naturally arises is, whether the
different kinds of property assessed by the State Board are
distinct and separable upon the face of the assessment, so
that the company being thereby informed of the amount
of taxes levied upon each, could be held to have been in
default in not tendering such sum, if any, as was legally
due? Upon the transcript before us, this question must be
answered in the negative. No record of assessment, as
made by the State Board, was introduced at the trial, and
presumably, no such record existed. Nor is there any
documentary evidence of such assessment, except the
official communication of the State Board to the local
assessors, called, in the findings, the assessment roll of
the county. That roll shows only the aggregate valuation
of the company's franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and
rolling-stock in the State; the length of the company's
main track in the State; its length in the county; the
assessed value per mile of the railway as fixed by the pro
rata distribution per mile of the assessed value of its
whole franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, *415 and
rolling-stock in the State; and the apportionment of the
property so assessed to the county.
It appears, as already stated, from the evidence, that the
fences were included in the valuation of the defendants'
property; but under what head, whether of franchise,
roadway, or road-bed, does not appear. Nor can it be
ascertained, with reasonable certainty, either from the
assessment roll or from other evidence, what was the
aggregate valuation of the fences, or what part **1143 of
such valuation was apportioned to the respective counties
through which the railroad was operated. If the
presumption is, that the State Board included in its
valuation only such property as it had jurisdiction under
the state constitution to assess, namely, such as could be
rightfully classified under the heads of franchise,
roadway, road-bed, rails, or rolling-stock, that
presumption was overthrown by proof that it did, in fact,
include, under some one or more of those heads, the
fences in question. It was then incumbent upon the
plaintiff, by satisfactory evidence, to separate that which
was illegal from that which was legal-assuming for the
purposes of this case only, that the assessment was, in all
other respects, legal-and thus impose upon the defendant
the duty of tendering, or enabling the court to render
judgment for, such amount, if any, as was justly due. But
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 13
no such evidence was introduced. The finding that the
fences were valued at $300 per mile is too vague and
indefinite as a basis for estimating the aggregate valuation
of the fences included in the assessment, or the amount
thereof apportioned to the respective counties. Were the
fences the property of adjacent proprietors? Were they
assessed at that rate for every mile of the railroad within
the State? Were they erected on the line of the railroad in
every county through which it was operated, or only in
some of them? Wherever erected, were they assessed for
each side of the railway, or only for one side? These
questions, so important in determining the extent to which
the assessment included a valuation of the fences erected
upon the line between the railroad and coterminous
proprietors, find no solution in the record presented to this
court.
If it be suggested that, under the circumstances, the court
*416 might have assumed that the State Board included
the fences in their assessment, at the rate of $300 per mile
for every mile of the railroad within the State, counting
one or both sides of the roadway, and, having thus
eliminated from the assessment the aggregate so found,
given judgment for such sum, if any, as, upon that basis,
would have been due upon the valuation of the franchise,
road-bed, roadway, rails, and rolling-stock of the
defendant, the answer is, that the plaintiff did not offer to
take such a judgment; and the court could not have
rendered one of that character without concluding the
plaintiff hereafter, and upon a proper assessment, from
claiming against the defendant taxes for the years in
question, upon such of its property as constituted its
franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling-stock. The
case as presented to the court below, was, therefore, one
in which the plaintiff sought judgment for an entire tax
arising upon an assessment of different kinds of property
as a unit-such assessment including property not legally
assessable by the State Board, and the part of the tax
assessed against the latter property not being separable
from the other part. Upon such an issue, the law, we think,
is for the defendant; an assessment of that kind is invalid,
and will not support an action for the recovery of the
entire tax so levied. Cooley on Taxation, 295-296, and
authorities there cited; Libby v. Burnham, 15 Mass. 144,
147; State Randolph, S.C. v. City of Plainfield, 38 N. J.
Law (9 Vroom), 93; Gamble v. Witty, 55 Mississippi 26,
35; Stone v. Bean, 15 Gray, 42, 45; Mosher v. Robie, 11
Maine (2 Fairfield), 137 Johnson v. Colburn, 36 Vt. 695;
Wells v. Burbank, 17 N. H. 393, 412.
It results that the court below might have given judgment
6 S.Ct. 1132
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
(Cite as: 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132)
in each case for the defendant upon the ground that the
assessment, which was the foundation of the action,
included property of material value, which the State
Board was without jurisdiction to assess, and the tax
levied upon which cannot, from the record, be separated
from that imposed upon other property embraced in the
same assessment. As the judgment can be sustained upon
this ground it is not necessary to consider any other
questions raised by the pleadings and the facts found by
the court.
*417 It follows that there is no occasion to determine
under what circumstances the plaintiffs would be entitled
to judgment against a delinquent tax-payer for penalties,
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 14
interest, or attorney's fees; for, if the plaintiffs are not
entitled to judgment for the taxes arising **1144 out of
the assessments in question, no liability for penalties,
interest, or attorney's fees, could result from a refusal or
failure to pay such taxes.
Judgment affirmed.
U.S. 1886
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co.
118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
 Date of Printing: Oct 23, 2010

KEYCITE

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (U.S.Cal.,May 10,
1886)
History

Direct History

1 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 9 Sawy. 165, 18 F. 385 (C.C.D.Cal. Sep 17, 1883)
Affirmed by
=> 2 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (U.S.Cal.
May 10, 1886)
AND Affirmed by
3 People of State of California v. Northern Ry. Co., 118 U.S. 417, 6 S.Ct. 1144, 30 L.Ed. 125 (U.S.Cal.
May 10, 1886)
AND Affirmed by
4 San Bernardino County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 417, 6 S.Ct. 1144, 30 L.Ed. 125 (U.S.Cal.
May 10, 1886)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
 Date of Printing: Oct 23, 2010

KEYCITE

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (U.S.Cal., May 10,
1886)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
 Date of Printing: Oct 23, 2010

KEYCITE

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (U.S.Cal. May 10,
1886)
Citing References

Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

Discussed
1 Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 104 S.Ct. 900, 940+, 465 U.S. 89, 160+, 79 L.Ed.2d
67, 67+ (U.S.Pa. Jan 23, 1984) (NO. 81-2101) " (in dissent)
2 Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 69 S.Ct. 1291, 1298+, 337 U.S. 562, 574+, 93 L.Ed. 1544, 1544+,
55 Ohio Law Abs. 305, 305+ (U.S.Ohio Jun 20, 1949) (NO. 447, 448)
3 State of California v. Central Pac. R. Co., 8 S.Ct. 1073, 1073+, 127 U.S. 1, 26+, 32 L.Ed. 150, 150+
(U.S.Cal. Apr 30, 1888) (NO. 1157, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664)
4 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 33 F. 121, 122+ (C.C.N.D.Ga. May 18, 1887)
5 Pacific Coast Ry. Co. v. Ramage, 37 P. 532, 532+, 4 Cal.Unrep. 743, 744+ (Cal. Sep 01, 1894) (NO.
19,343)

Cited
6 Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1442, 475 U.S. 673, 693, 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 674, 54 USLW
4347, 4347, 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1, 1 (U.S.Del. Apr 07, 1986) (NO. 84-1279) (in dissent)
7 First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1418+, 435 U.S. 765, 780+, 55 L.Ed.2d 707,
707+, 3 Media L. Rep. 2105, 2105+ (U.S.Mass. Apr 26, 1978) (NO. 76-1172)
8 Bell v. State of Md., 84 S.Ct. 1814, 1833+, 378 U.S. 226, 262+, 12 L.Ed.2d 822, 822+ (U.S.Md. Jun
22, 1964) (NO. 12) "
9 Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 58 S.Ct. 436, 441, 303 U.S. 77, 87, 82 L.Ed. 673, 673
(U.S.Cal. Jan 31, 1938) (NO. 316) (in dissent)
10 Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exch. Corp., 43 S.Ct. 636, 638, 262 U.S. 544, 550, 67
L.Ed. 1112, 1112 (U.S.Wis. Jun 11, 1923) (NO. 17)
11 Hale v. Henkel, 26 S.Ct. 370, 383, 201 U.S. 43, 84, 50 L.Ed. 652, 652 (U.S.N.Y. Mar 12, 1906) (NO.
340) (in dissent)
12 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. U.S., 22 S.Ct. 154, 158, 183 U.S. 519, 527, 46 L.Ed. 307, 307 (U.S.Cal. Jan
06, 1902) (NO. 18, 24)
13 Blake v. McClung, 19 S.Ct. 165, 173, 172 U.S. 239, 259, 43 L.Ed. 432, 432 (U.S.Tenn. Dec 12,
1898) (NO. 6)
14 Smyth v. Ames, 18 S.Ct. 418, 424, 169 U.S. 466, 522, 42 L.Ed. 819, 819 (U.S.Neb. Mar 07, 1898)
(NO. 49, 50, 51)
15 Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 17 S.Ct. 255, 256, 165 U.S. 150, 154, 41 L.Ed. 666, 666 (U.S.Tex.
Jan 18, 1897) (NO. 133)
16 Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 17 S.Ct. 198, 203, 164 U.S. 578, 592, 41 L.Ed. 560,
560 (U.S.Ky. Dec 14, 1896) (NO. 50)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

17 Central Pac. R. Co. v. People of the State of California, 16 S.Ct. 766, 774+, 162 U.S. 91, 112+, 40
L.Ed. 903, 903+ (U.S.Cal. Mar 16, 1896) (NO. 559)
18 Southern Pac R Co v. People of State of California, 16 S.Ct. 794, 794, 162 U.S. 167, 167, 40 L.Ed.
929, 929 (U.S.Cal. Mar 16, 1896) (NO. 560)
19 Charlotte, C. & A.R. Co. v. Gibbes, 12 S.Ct. 255, 256, 142 U.S. 386, 391, 35 L.Ed. 1051, 1051
(U.S.S.C. Jan 04, 1892)
20 Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 9 S.Ct. 207, 207, 129 U.S. 26, 28, 32 L.Ed. 585, 585
(U.S.Iowa Jan 07, 1889)
21 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mackey, 8 S.Ct. 1161, 1162+, 127 U.S. 205, 208+, 32 L.Ed. 107, 107+
(U.S.Kan. Apr 23, 1888)
22 Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. People of New York, 7 S.Ct. 108, 113+, 119 U.S. 110, 120+, 30 L.Ed.
342, 342+ (U.S.N.Y. Nov 15, 1886) " (in dissent)
23 Home Ins. Co. v. City of New York, 8 S.Ct. 1385, 1388+, 119 U.S. 129, 133+, 30 L.Ed. 350, 350+
(U.S.N.Y. Nov 15, 1886)
24 Hudson Valley Freedom Theater, Inc. v. Heimbach, 671 F.2d 702, 706 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Feb 01, 1982)
(NO. 292, 81-7425)
25 E.E.O.C. v. Corry Jamestown Corp., 719 F.2d 1219, 1222, 33 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 871, 871,
32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,860, 33860, 37 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1216, 1216 (3rd Cir.(Pa.) Oct 17, 1983)
(NO. 82-5706)
26 Stockton v. Baltimore & N.Y.R. Co., 32 F. 9, 13 (C.C.D.N.J. Aug 01, 1887)
27 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Chicago and North Western Transp. Co., Inc., 62 F.3d 185, 190 (7th Cir.(Ill.) Jul
31, 1995) (NO. 94-3145)
28 Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 27 F.3d 1254, 1259, 63 USLW 2017, 2017 (7th Cir.(Ill.)
Jun 24, 1994) (NO. 93-3403)
29 Cole v. Young, 817 F.2d 412, 433 (7th Cir.(Wis.) Apr 28, 1987) (NO. 86-1308) (in dissent)
30 City and County of San Francisco v. Market Street Ry. Co., 98 F.2d 628, 631 (C.C.A.9 (Cal.) Jul 07,
1938) (NO. 8245)
31 State of Kansas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 77 F. 339, 343 (C.C.D.Kan. Dec 07, 1896) (NO.
7391)
32 Merced Dredging Co. v. Merced County, 67 F.Supp. 598, 604 (S.D.Cal. Jun 29, 1946) (NO. 378)
33 Sanderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 738 F.Supp. 432, 435 (D.Colo. May 29, 1990) (NO. 89 C 1023)
34 Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224, 234 (D.Conn. Sep 20, 1972) (NO. CIV. B-521) (in dissent)
35 Alexandria Canal, Railroad & Bridge Co. v. District of Columbia, 5 Mackey 376, 376+, 1887 WL
12681, *5+, 16 D.C. 376, 380+ (D.C.Sup. Jan 24, 1887) (NO. 27421, 8548)
36 Meek v. Martinez, 724 F.Supp. 888, 902 (S.D.Fla. Dec 11, 1987) (NO. 87-1233-CIV-KEHOE)
37 CSX Transp., Inc. v. Chicago and North Western Transp. Co., 1994 WL 406546, *5 (N.D.Ill. Aug 01,
1994) (NO. 93 C 0168)
38 Joe Louis Milk Co. v. Hershey, 243 F.Supp. 351, 354 (N.D.Ill. Jul 27, 1965) (NO. 64 C 1478)
39 Douglas Park Jockey Club v. Grainger, 146 F. 414, 417 (C.C.W.D.Ky. May 24, 1906)
40 Emory Utilities, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2010 WL 2402888, *2 (E.D.N.C. Jun 11, 2010)
(NO. 7:09-CV-169-BO)
41 Central Trust Co. of New York v. Western N.C.R. Co., 89 F. 24, 31 (C.C.W.D.N.C. Jul 05, 1898)
42 New Creation Fellowship of Buffalo v. Town of Cheektowaga, N.Y., 2004 WL 1498190, *11
(W.D.N.Y. Jul 02, 2004) (NO. 99-CV-460A(F))
43 Kansas Natural Gas Co. v. Haskell, 172 F. 545, 566 (C.C.E.D.Okla. Jul 03, 1909) (NO. 856, 857,

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 858, 859)
44 Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC v. Blaine Tp., 649 F.Supp.2d 412, 417 (W.D.Pa. Jun 23, 2009)
(NO. CIV.A 09-355)
45 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Taylor, 86 F. 168, 177+ (C.C.M.D.Tenn. Mar 15, 1898)
46 Wright Farms Const., Inc. v. Kreps, 444 F.Supp. 1023, 1027, 24 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 82,142,
82142 (D.Vt. Dec 23, 1977) (NO. CIV. 77-260)
47 Coleman & Williams, Ltd. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Development, 401 F.Supp.2d 938, 945
(E.D.Wis. Nov 17, 2005) (NO. 05-C-0466)
48 White v. Reynolds Metals Co., 558 So.2d 373, 380 (Ala. Dec 21, 1989) (NO. 89-386)
49 Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. State, 48 So. 658, 659, 159 Ala. 118, 119 (Ala. Feb 04, 1909)
50 Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Langston, 30 S.W. 427, 429, 60 Ark. 381, 381 (Ark. Apr 06, 1895)
51 American De Forest Wireless Tel. Co. v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 96 P.
15, 16, 153 Cal. 533, 536, 17 L.R.A.N.S. 1117, 1117, 126 Am.St.Rep. 125, 125 (Cal. May 11, 1908)
(NO. 4,511)
52 Grocers' Fruit Growing Union v. Kern County Land Co., 89 P. 120, 124, 150 Cal. 466, 476 (Cal. Feb
07, 1907) (NO. 3,573)
53 San Francisco & S.J.V. Ry. Co. v. City of Stockton, 84 P. 771, 772+, 149 Cal. 83, 86+ (Cal. Mar 31,
1906) (NO. 1,186)
54 Beveridge v. Lewis, 67 P. 1040, 1041, 137 Cal. 619, 630 (Cal. Feb 25, 1902) (NO. 973)
55 City & County of San Francisco v. San Mateo County, 213 P.2d 505, 512 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Jan 17,
1950) (NO. CIV. 13915)
56 Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. State, 690 P.2d 177, 182 (Colo. Aug 20, 1984) (NO. 83SA23)
57 Capital Bank of St. Paul v. School-Dist. No. 85 of Cass and Barnes Counties, 42 N.W. 774, 776, 6
Dakota 248, 248 (Dakota Terr. Jun 03, 1889)
58 Hart Holding Co. Inc. v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 1992 WL 127567, *3+, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P
96,919, 96919+, 18 Del. J. Corp. L. 700, 707+ (Del.Ch. May 28, 1992) (NO. C.A. 11514)
59 Hart v. Smith, 64 N.E. 661, 666+, 159 Ind. 182, 182+, 95 Am.St.Rep. 280, 280+, 58 L.R.A. 949,
949+ (Ind. Jun 27, 1902)
60 Woodbine Sav. Bank v. Tyler, 162 N.W. 590, 591, 181 Iowa 1389, 1389 (Iowa May 14, 1917) (NO.
30458)
61 Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Phillips, 82 N.W. 787, 789, 111 Iowa 377, 377 (Iowa May 14, 1900)
62 Kansas East Conference of United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Bethany Medical Center, Inc., 969 P.2d
859, 868, 266 Kan. 366, 380 (Kan. Dec 11, 1998) (NO. 80,274)
63 State v. Haun, 59 P. 340, 344, 61 Kan. 146, 146, 47 L.R.A. 369, 369 (Kan. Dec 09, 1899)
64 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. McKee, 15 P. 484, 489+, 37 Kan. 592, 592+ (Kan. Nov 05, 1887)
65 Louisville Safety-Vault & Trust Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 17 S.W. 567, 568, 13 Ky.L.Rptr. 517,
517, 92 Ky. 233, 233, 14 L.R.A. 579, 579 (Ky. Nov 10, 1891)
66 State v. American Sugar-Refining Co., 25 So. 447, 449, 51 La.Ann. 562, 566 (La. Dec 19, 1898)
(NO. 12,877)
67 Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 239 A.2d 740, 745, 249 Md. 334, 346
(Md. Mar 22, 1968) (NO. 238)
68 Daly v. Morgan, 16 A. 287, 301, 69 Md. 460, 460, 1 L.R.A. 757, 757 (Md. Nov 23, 1888) (in
dissent)
69 Hammond Beef & Provision Co. v. Best, 40 A. 338, 340, 91 Me. 431, 431, 42 L.R.A. 528, 528 (Me.
Apr 18, 1898)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

70 Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co., 34 So. 533, 544, 81 Miss. 507, 507, 95 Am.St.Rep. 476, 476,
62 L.R.A. 407, 407 (Miss. Apr 27, 1903) "
71 McClung v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 214 S.W. 193, 197, 279 Mo. 370, 370 (Mo. Jul 07, 1919) (NO. 18920)
72 State ex rel. Equitable Assur. Society of U.S. v. Vandiver, 121 S.W. 45, 51+, 222 Mo. 206, 206+
(Mo. May 22, 1909)
73 Julian v. Kansas City Star Co., 107 S.W. 496, 511, 209 Mo. 35, 35 (Mo. Dec 24, 1907) (in dissent)
74 Russell v. Croy, 63 S.W. 849, 853+, 164 Mo. 69, 69+ (Mo. Jun 18, 1901) "
75 Associated Press, Inc. v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 4 P.3d 5, 16, 300 Mont. 233, 251, 2000 MT
160, 160 (Mont. Jun 20, 2000) (NO. 99-175)
76 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Brogan, 158 P. 820, 823, 52 Mont. 461, 461 (Mont. Jun 30, 1916) (NO.
3886)
77 State v. Thomas, 64 P. 503, 506, 25 Mont. 226, 226 (Mont. Apr 08, 1901)
78 Sullivan v. City of Omaha, Neb., 21 N.W.2d 510, 512, 146 Neb. 297, 308 (Neb. Jan 25, 1946) (NO.
31929)
79 In re Opinion of the Justices, 33 A. 1076, 1077, 66 N.H. 629, 629 (N.H. Mar 31, 1891)
80 United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Curiale, 645 N.Y.S.2d 413, 416, 668 N.E.2d 384, 387, 88 N.Y.2d 306,
311, 64 USLW 2705, 2705 (N.Y. Apr 30, 1996) (NO. 94)
81 People ex rel. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. Priest, 99 N.E. 547, 551, 206 N.Y. 274, 289 (N.Y.
Oct 15, 1912)
82 PEOPLE v. NORTH RIVER SUGAR REFINING CO., 25 Abb. N. Cas. 1, 28 (N.Y. Jun 1890)
83 People v. Warren, 69 N.Y.St.Rep. 167, 167, 34 N.Y.S. 942, 944, 11 N.Y.Crim.R. 433, 433, 13 Misc.
615, 616 (N.Y.Super. Jul 30, 1895)
84 People ex rel. Warren v. Beck, 62 N.Y.St.Rep. 396, 396, 30 N.Y.S. 473, 479, 10 Misc. 77, 87
(N.Y.Super. Oct 08, 1894) (in dissent)
85 People v. NYTAC Corp., 783 N.Y.S.2d 775, 778, 5 Misc.3d 304, 308, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24304,
24304 (N.Y.Dist.Ct. Aug 27, 2004) (NO. HUTO506-04)
86 Squires v. Swanson, 37 P.2d 276, 277, 169 Okla. 390, 390, 1934 OK 611, 611 (Okla. Oct 30, 1934)
(NO. 22585)
87 Davenport v. Doyle, 157 P. 110, 111, 57 Okla. 341, 341, 1916 OK 453, 453 (Okla. Apr 18, 1916)
(NO. 6695)
88 Sullivan v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 24 P. 408, 409, 19 Or. 319, 321 (Or. Jun 10, 1890)
89 Wolff Chemical Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 66 A. 344, 345, 217 Pa. 215, 219 (Pa. Mar 11, 1907)
90 Kelly v. Harrisburg Nat. Bank, 1937 WL 5439, *7, 26 Pa.Corp. 346, 346, 30 Pa. D. & C. 535, 546,
44 Dauph. 174, 174 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1937)
91 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Philadelphia County, 16 Pa. D. 723, 727, 1907 WL 3416, *4 (Pa.Com.Pl.
1907)
92 Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 4 S.E. 49, 55, 27 S.C. 385, 385 (S.C. Oct 18, 1887) " (in
dissent)
93 Ex parte Ellis, 279 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex.App.-Austin Aug 22, 2008) (NO. 03-05-00585-CR, 03-05-
00586-CR, 03-05-00589-CR, 03-05-00590-CR, 03-05-00591-CR, 03-05-00592-CR, 03-05-00593-
CR, 03-05-00594-CR, 03-05-00595-CR)
94 R.B. Butler, Inc. v. Crowley, 1989 WL 1191, *4 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.) Jan 12, 1989) (NO. B14-
87-00908-CV)
95 Crystal Lime & Cement Co. v. Robbins, 209 P.2d 739, 747, 116 Utah 314, 330 (Utah Sep 16, 1949)
(NO. 7134) (in dissent)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 96 Seneca Falls Greenhouse & Nursery v. Layton, 389 S.E.2d 184, 186, 9 Va.App. 482, 485 (Va.App.
Feb 27, 1990) (NO. 1696-88-4)
97 Lawrence v. Rutland R. Co., 67 A. 1091, 1096, 80 Vt. 370, 370, 15 L.R.A.N.S. 350, 350, 13
Am.Ann.Cas. 475, 475 (Vt. Nov 16, 1907)
98 Kingsley v. City of Merrill, 99 N.W. 1044, 1050, 122 Wis. 185, 185, 2 Am.Ann.Cas. 748, 748, 67
L.R.A. 200, 200 (Wis. Jun 09, 1904) " (in dissent)
99 Anderson's Paving, Inc. v. Hayes, 295 S.E.2d 805, 808, 170 W.Va. 640, 643 (W.Va. May 12, 1982)
(NO. CC927) (in dissent)

Mentioned
100 Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1236, 410 U.S. 719, 741,
35 L.Ed.2d 659, 659, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,437, 20437 (U.S.Cal. Mar 20, 1973) (NO. 71-1456) (in
dissent)
101 Adamson v. People of State of California, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 1690, 332 U.S. 46, 80, 91 L.Ed. 1903,
1903, 171 A.L.R. 1223, 1223 (U.S.Cal. Jun 23, 1947) (NO. 102) (in dissent)
102 Russian Volunteer Fleet v. U.S., 51 S.Ct. 229, 231, 282 U.S. 481, 489, 75 L.Ed. 473, 473 (U.S.Ct.Cl.
Feb 24, 1931) (NO. 39)
103 Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 47 S.Ct. 678, 679, 274 U.S. 490, 493, 71 L.Ed. 1165, 1165 (U.S.Ark.
May 31, 1927) (NO. 258)
104 Fargo v. Hart, 24 S.Ct. 498, 501, 193 U.S. 490, 503, 48 L.Ed. 761, 761 (U.S.Ind. Mar 21, 1904) (NO.
154)
105 George v. Mutual Investment & Agency Co, 284 F. 681, 686 (C.C.A.8 (N.M.) Nov 02, 1922) (NO.
5905)
106 LaShawn A. v. Barry, 69 F.3d 556, 581, 314 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 417 (D.C.Cir. Oct 31, 1995) (NO.
94-7044) (in dissent)
107 State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 F. 353, 368 (C.C.W.D.Ark. Sep 02, 1899)
108 The Navemar, 18 F.Supp. 153, 158, 1937 A.M.C. 26, 26 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 28, 1937) (NO. 15102)
109 Bessemer Theatres v. City of Bessemer, 75 So.2d 651, 657, 261 Ala. 632, 639 (Ala. Nov 04, 1954)
(NO. 6 DIV. 201)
110 City of Gadsden v. American Nat. Bank, 144 So. 93, 97, 225 Ala. 490, 495 (Ala. Jun 18, 1932) (NO.
7 DIV. 137.) (in dissent)
111 Taylor v. City of Pine Bluff, 289 S.W.2d 679, 683, 226 Ark. 309, 316 (Ark. Apr 30, 1956) (NO.
4839) (in dissent)
112 Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State, 111 S.W. 456, 460, 86 Ark. 412, 412 (Ark. Jun 01, 1908)
113 San Pedro, L.A. & S.L.R. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 179 P. 393, 397, 180 Cal. 18, 27 (Cal. Feb 25,
1919) (NO. 4600)
114 Johnson v. Goodyear Min. Co., 59 P. 304, 305, 127 Cal. 4, 8 (Cal. Nov 20, 1899) (NO. 558)
115 Shelby v. City of Pensacola, 151 So. 53, 55, 112 Fla. 584, 589 (Fla. Nov 02, 1933)
116 Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Cross, 112 S.E. 654, 654, 28 Ga.App. 629, 629 (Ga.App. Jun 13,
1922) (NO. 13469)
117 Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. v. Korzen, 273 N.E.2d 592, 602, 49 Ill.2d 137, 157 (Ill. Jul 09, 1971)
(NO. 44199, 44308, 44432) (in dissent)
118 Michigan Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. McDonough, 193 N.E. 662, 665, 358 Ill. 575, 584 (Ill. Dec
17, 1934) (NO. 21989, 21990)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

119 Board of Com'rs of Johnson County v. Johnson, 89 N.E. 590, 594, 173 Ind. 76, 76 (Ind. Oct 27,
1909) (NO. 21,317)
120 Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 49 N.E. 582, 585, 152 Ind. 1, 1, 71 Am.St.Rep.
301, 301, 69 L.R.A. 875, 875 (Ind. Feb 19, 1898)
121 Henry Fisher Packing Co. v. Mattox, 90 S.W.2d 70, 72, 262 Ky. 318, 318 (Ky. Jan 24, 1936)
122 State v. Montgomery, 47 A. 165, 168, 94 Me. 192, 192, 80 Am.St.Rep. 386, 386 (Me. May 28, 1900)
123 Daggs v. Orient Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 38 S.W. 85, 86, 136 Mo. 382, 382, 58 Am.St.Rep. 638,
638, 35 L.R.A. 227, 227 (Mo. Dec 15, 1896)
124 Stix v. Travelers' Indemnity Co. of Hartford, Conn., 157 S.W. 870, 872, 175 Mo.App. 171, 171
(Mo.App. Jun 03, 1913)
125 Skiles v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 108 S.W. 1082, 1084, 130 Mo.App. 162, 162 (Mo.App. Mar
17, 1908)
126 Lewis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 92 P. 469, 474, 36 Mont. 207, 207 (Mont. Nov 23, 1907)
127 U. S. Trust Co. of New York v. Territory, 62 P. 987, 991, 10 N.M. 416, 416, 10 Gild. 416, 416
(N.M.Terr. Aug 23, 1900)
128 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Pierson, 222 N.Y.S. 532, 539, 130 Misc. 110, 115 (N.Y.Sup. May 14,
1927)
129 Bowland v. Wolfe Bros. Shoe Co., 18 Ohio Dec. 126, 127, 5 Ohio N.P.(N.S.) 170, 170, 1907 WL
750, *1 (Ohio Com.Pl. May 03, 1907)
130 State v. Standard Oil Co., 123 P. 40, 42, 61 Or. 438, 443, Am.Ann.Cas. 1914B,179, 1914B,179 (Or.
Apr 16, 1912)
131 D'Arcy v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 69 S.W. 768, 768, 108 Tenn. 567, 567, 24 Pickle 567, 567
(Tenn. May 08, 1902)
132 Dugger v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. of New Orleans, 32 S.W. 5, 6, 95 Tenn. 245, 245, 11 Pickle
245, 245, 28 L.R.A. 796, 796 (Tenn. Jun 22, 1895)
133 Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. v. Adams, 366 S.W.2d 801, 805 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston Apr
04, 1963) (NO. 14085)
134 Johnson v. Jones, 83 A. 1085, 1087, 86 Vt. 167, 167 (Vt. Jul 04, 1912)
135 Holbrook, Inc. v. Clark County, 49 P.3d 142, 150, 112 Wash.App. 354, 368 (Wash.App. Div. 2 Jun
28, 2002) (NO. 27216-4-II)
136 Huber v. Martin, 105 N.W. 1031, 1038, 127 Wis. 412, 412, 3 L.R.A.N.S. 653, 653, 115 Am.St.Rep.
1023, 1023, 7 Am.Ann.Cas. 400, 400 (Wis. Jan 30, 1906)
137 Peel Splint Coal Co. v. State, 15 S.E. 1000, 1013, 36 W.Va. 802, 802, 17 L.R.A. 385, 385 (W.Va. Oct
06, 1892) (in dissent)

State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

138 IN THE MATTER OF 29 HANCOCK STREET, LLC, 2001 WL 1742872 (Mass.Dept.Env.Prot.), *4
(2001)
139 Re: Proposed national bank in organization, 1988 WL 490063 (Pa.Sec.Com.), *7 (1988)

Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

140 P 95,441 UNSOPHISTICATED CONSUMER STANDARD APPLIED, (JUNE 24, 1994), CCH
Consumer Credit Guide 95441 (2010)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)
141 Scope and content of term "right of way" as employed in statute relating to taxation, or exemption
from taxation, of railroads or railroad property, 108 A.L.R. 242 (1937)
142 What property is within provision in relation to local taxation of certain railroad property under
statute or constitution providing for assessment or taxation of railroad property by state commission
or board, 80 A.L.R. 252 (1932)
143 Constitutionality of taxing statute which refuses to corporation deduction of credits allowed to
individual taxpayer, 42 A.L.R. 1049 (1926)
144 6 Arizona Practice s 1:6, General corporation laws (2010)
145 BNA Tax Management Accounting Policy & Practice Portfolios NO 5003 s III, Dealing with Taxing
Authorities That Request FIN 48 Workpapers (2010)
146 Corporate Law and Practice s 1:2.3, A Structural Theory of the Corporation (2010)
147 Criminal Procedure, Second Edition s 15.1(B), The Fifth Amendment right: scope (2009)
148 Fletcher Cyclopedia Law of Private Corporations s 2940, Contributions for political purposes (2010)
149 Fletcher Cyclopedia Law of Private Corporations s 6940, Equal protection--General rules (2010)
150 Fletcher Cyclopedia Law of Private Corporations s 6940.50, Equal protection--Equality of taxation
(2010)
151 Gov. Discrim.: Equal Protection Law & Litig. s 1:1, Nature of discrimination (2010)
152 7 LA Civil Law Treatise s 7.04, As a person generally (2010)
153 State Taxation P 3.01, INTRODUCTION TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2010)
154 20 Tex. Prac. Series s 26.2, The corporation as a "person" (2010)
155 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 14.5, Which Individuals Are Protected by the Constitutional
Guarantees? (2010)
156 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 15.2, The Growth of the Substantive Due Process Concept--1865 to
1900 (2010)
157 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 23.18, Principles of Interpretation: The Remedy for Mischief
(2010)
158 Treatise on Constitutional Law s 23.20, Construing Provisions for Protection of Life, Liberty and
Property (2010)
159 Am. Jur. 2d Railroads s 119, Generally (2010)
160 Am. Jur. 2d State and Local Taxation s 786, Pleading and proof (2010)
161 CA Jur. 3d Constitutional Law s 177, Limitations; state constitutional provisions--Due process; equal
protection (2010)
162 CA Jur. 3d Constitutional Law s 334, Persons protected by guaranty (2010)
163 CA Jur. 3d Corporations s 15, Corporation as person (2010)
164 CA Jur. 3d Deeds of Trust s 75, Beneficiary's rights, duties and liabilities in general (2010)
165 CA Jur. 3d Property Taxes s 255, Definition (2010)
166 CJS Constitutional Law s 1346, Taxes on corporations (2010)
167 CJS Railroads s 14, Right of way, roadbed, roadway, substructure, and superstructure (2010)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

168 Ga. Jur. Corporations, etc. s 1:1, What is a corporation (2010)
169 Ga. Jur. Corporations, etc. s 2:33, Generally (2010)
170 NY Jur. 2d Taxation & Assessment s 67, Generally (2010)
171 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND WHAT THEY
TELL US ABOUT ITS INTERPRETATION, 39 Akron L. Rev. 289, 321+ (2006)
172 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS: CONSIDERING THE
RIGHTS OF OWNERS, PROGRAMMERS AND VIRTUAL AVATARS, 39 Akron L. Rev. 649,
700+ (2006)
173 SCALIA, PROPERTY, AND DOLAN v. TIGARD: THE EMERGENCE OF A POST-CAROLENE
PRODUCTS JURISPRUDENCE, 29 Akron L. Rev. 1, 34 (1995)
174 CANDIDATES AND CORPORATIONS, 76-JUN A.B.A. J. 40, 40 (1990)
175 CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: REHABILITATING RETRIBUTION AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY, 47 Am. Bus. L.J. 109, 144 (2010)
176 THE EVOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT-BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP IN THE UNITED
STATES: COLONIAL TIMES TO PRESENT, 31 Am. Bus. L.J. 553, 640 (1994)
177 APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS: AN
AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 531, 566 (2002)
178 WHY PERSONHOOD DOESN'T MATTER: CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND
SANCTIONS, 18 Am. J. Crim. L. 263, 287 (1991)
179 LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: LORD BRAMWELL AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF
LIBERAL JURISPRUDENCE INDIVIDUALISM, FREEDOM, AND UTILITY, 38 Am. J. Legal
Hist. 288, 321 (1994)
180 REGULATING MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: TOWARDS PRINCIPLES OF CROSS-
BORDER LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD BALANCING RIGHTS WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES, 23 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 451, 558 (2008)
181 FEMINIST THOUGHT AND CORPORATE LAW: IT'S TIME TO FIND OUR WAY UP FROM
THE BOTTOM (LINE), 2 Am. U. J. Gender & L. 1, 36+ (1994)
182 EQUAL PROTECTION: THE JURISPRUDENCE OF DENIAL AND EVASION, 40 Am. U. L.
Rev. 1307, 1355 (1991)
183 CONVENTIONALISM IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND THE PLACE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, 36 Am. U. L. Rev. 573, 599 (1987)
184 ANIMAL ADVOCACY AND CAUSES OF ACTION, 13 Animal L. 87, 121+ (2006)
185 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE BANKING
EXPERIMENT, 4 Ann. Rev. Banking L. 213, 235 (1985)
186 THE SCIENCE FICTION OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY: CONTAINING THE
MACHINE THROUGH THE CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY, 47 Ariz. L. Rev. 933, 1002+
(2005)
187 THE OTHER RIGHT-TO-LIFE DEBATE: WHEN DOES FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT "LIFE"
END?, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 1183, 1207+ (1995)
188 THE RISE OF THE CLOSE CORPORATION AND THE MAKING OF CORPORATION LAW, 5
Berkeley Bus. L.J. 263, 316 (2008)
189 THE AMORALITY OF PROFIT: TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
20 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 45, 90 (2002)
190 AGAINST CYBERLAW, 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1145, 1232 (2000)
191 CONGRESSIONAL ARROGATION OF POWER: ALIEN CONSTELLATION IN THE GALAXY

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 OF EQUAL PROTECTION, 74 B.U. L. Rev. 591, 641 (1994)
192 CORPORATE ADVERTISING'S DEMOCRACY, 12 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 389, 460 (2003)
193 THE MONROE MYSTERY SOLVED: BEYOND THE "UNHAPPY HISTORY" THEORY OF
CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION, 1991 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 737, 765 (1991)
194 WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE Liberals Rediscover Federalism in the Wake of the War on
Terror, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1277, 1311 (2004)
195 NEW PARADIGM, NORMAL SCIENCE, OR CRUMBLING CONSTRUCT? TRENDS IN
ADJUDICATORY PROCEDURE AND LITIGATION REFORM, 59 Brook. L. Rev. 659, 760
(1993)
196 THE IMPAIRMENTS OF CONTRACTS CLAUSE AND THE CORPORATION: A COMMENT
ON PROFESSORS BUTLER'S AND RIBSTEIN'S THESIS, 55 Brook. L. Rev. 809, 830 (1989)
197 A CORPORATION OF A DIFFERENT COLOR; Hudson Valley Freedom Theater, Inc. v.
Heimbach, 49 Brook. L. Rev. 1179, 1191 (1983)
198 PLANET OF THE APS: REFLECTIONS ON THE SCALE OF LAW AND ITS USERS, 53 Buff. L.
Rev. 1369, 1417 (2006)
199 THE SUBSTANTIVE POLITICS OF FORMAL CORPORATE POWER, 53 Buff. L. Rev. 1453,
1501 (2006)
200 BEYOND THE LAW AND ECONOMICS STYLE: ADVANCING CORPORATE LAW IN AN
ERA OF DOWNSIZING AND CORPORATE REENGINEERING PROGRESSIVE CORPORATE
LAW. EDITED BY LAWRENCE E. MITCHELL. BOULDER, CO: WESTVIEW PRESS, 1995. PP.
XX, 313. $, 84 Cal. L. Rev. 1693, 1718 (1996)
201 THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE JURISPRUDENCE OF ORIGINAL INTENT: THE RECENT
PAST, 77 Cal. L. Rev. 235, 282 (1989)
202 PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
FOR DETERMINING EXCESSIVENESS, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 1433, 1471 (1987)
203 KEEPING THE HOME TEAM AT HOME, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 1329, 1372+ (1986)
204 BETWEEN LEGAL REALISM AND NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES: THE LEGITIMACY OF
INSTITUTIONAL VALUES, 72 Cal. L. Rev. 200, 216 (1984)
205 THIS AIN'T THE TEXAS TWO STEP FOLKS: DISHARMONY, CONFUSION, AND THE
UNFAIR NATURE OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ANALYSIS IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, 37
Cap. U. L. Rev. 681, 727 (2009)
206 CORPORATE SPEECH IN A DEMOCRACY: WHAT CAN NIGERIA LEARN FROM ABROAD?,
13 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 61, 125 (2005)
207 TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: CAMPAIGN SPEECH AFTER CITIZENS UNITED, 31
Cardozo L. Rev. 2365, 2392 (2010)
208 AGAINST FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL EXPRESSION, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 2583, 2684 (2008)
209 THE SUBURB AS A LEGAL CONCEPT: THE PROBLEM OF ORGANIZATION AND THE
FATE OF MUNICIPALITIES IN AMERICAN LAW, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 1193, 1272 (2008)
210 WHAT'S PRAGMATIC ABOUT LEGAL PRAGMATISM?, 18 Cardozo L. Rev. 43, 73 (1996)
211 KINDS OF PERSONS, KINDS OF RIGHTS, KINDS OF BODIES, 10 Cardozo Stud. L. &
Literature 1, 23+ (1998)
212 INTRODUCTION: CORPORATIONS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES, 58 Case W. Res. L. Rev.
1017, 1029 (2008)
213 THE EXCLUSION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM THE REAPPORTIONMENT BASE: A
QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION, 41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 969, 997+ (1991)
214 NON-PROFIT CORPORATE POLITICAL SPEECHTI1FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS FOR LIFE, INC., 769 F.2D 13 (1ST CIR. 1985), AFF'D, 107 S.CT.
616 (1986), 63 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 159, 174 (1987)
215 REEXAMINING THE COLLECTIVE ENTITY DOCTRINE IN THE NEW ERA OF LIMITED
LIABILITY ENTITIES-SHOULD BUSINESS ENTITIES HAVE A FIFTH AMENDMENT
PRIVILEGE?, 2005 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 1, 110 (2005)
216 EQUAL PROTECTION, "GENERAL EQUALITY" AND ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION
FROM A U.S. PERSPECTIVE, 5 Colum. J. Eur. L. 281, 311 (1999)
217 THE MAKING OF THE POST-WAR PARADIGM IN AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LAW, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 139, 207 (2008)
218 THE TRANSFORMATION OF MORTON HORWITZ THE TRANSFORMATION OF
AMERICAN LAW, 1870-1960: THE CRISIS OF LEGAL ORTHODOXY. BY MORTON J.
HORWITZ. NEW YORK, NY.: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1992. Pp. IX, 361. $30.00., 93
Colum. L. Rev. 1042, 1059 (1993)
219 FORBEARANCE AGREEMENTS: INVALID CONTRACTS FOR THE SURRENDER OF
SOVEREIGNTY, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 426, 473 (1992)
220 THE NEW DEAL COURT: EMERGENCE OF A NEW REASON, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1973, 2016+
(1990)
221 UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IN CHOICE OF LAW, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 272, 295
(1977)
222 SOME BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE, 51 Colum. L.
Rev. 271, 326 (1951)
223 UTILIZING "ESSENTIALITY OF ACCESS" ANALYSES TO MITIGATE RISKY, COSTLY AND
UNTIMELY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS IN CONVERGING TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGIES AND MARKETS, 11 CommLaw Conspectus 251, 275+ (2003)
224 U.S. SUPREME COURT AT '99: JURISPRUDENCE OR IMPRUDENT JURISTS?, 73 Conn. B.J.
409, 427 (1999)
225 NIKE REVISITED: CAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATIONS ENGAGE IN NON-COMMERCIAL
SPEECH?, 39 Conn. L. Rev. 379, 450+ (2006)
226 PROTECTING UNCONSCIOUS, MEDICALLY-DEPENDENT PERSONS AFTER WENDLAND
& SCHIAVO, 22 Const. Comment. 475, 495 (2005)
227 THE AKHIL REED AMAR BILL OF RIGHTS The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. By
Akhil Reed Amar. New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press. 1998. Pp. xv, 412. Cloth, $30.00., 16
Const. Comment. 373, 401 (1999)
228 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING, 4 Const. Comment. 339,
362 (1987)
229 THE SAGA CONTINUES-CORPORATE POLITICAL FREE SPEECH AND THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 24 Creighton L. Rev. 195, 237 (1990)
230 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM BEFORE 1971, 1 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 1, 62+ (2008)
231 APPORTIONING DUE PROCESS: PRESERVING THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE JUSTICE, 87
Denv. U. L. Rev. 437, 472+ (2010)
232 THE WAITE COURT AT THE BAR OF HISTORY, 81 Denv. U. L. Rev. 449, 495+ (2003)
233 POLITICS AND DUE PROCESS: THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY LAW,
1990 Duke L.J. 913, 966 (1990)
234 THEORIES OF THE CORPORATION, 1990 Duke L.J. 201, 262 (1990)
235 THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, 1930-

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 1941, 1987 Duke L.J. 800, 830 (1987)
236 THE "PRICELESS POSSESSION" OF CITIZENSHIP: RACE, NATION AND
NATURALIZATION IN AMERICAN LAW, 1880-1930, 43 Duq. L. Rev. 369, 428 (2005)
237 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER: THE PERILS OF JUDICIAL PUNITIVE DAMAGES
REFORM, 59 Emory L.J. 727, 768 (2010)
238 PROCEDURAL VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE ECONOMIC DUE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC
UTILITIES, 12 Energy L.J. 81, 110 (1991)
239 THE IRON HORSE AND THE CONSTITUTION: THE RAILROADS AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 41 Fed. B. News & J. 142, 144
(1994)
240 THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN LAW, 1870-1960: THE CRISIS OF LEGAL
ORTHODOXY, BY MORTON J. HORWITZ; OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1992. 361 PAGES,
$30., 41 Fed. B. News & J. 74, 74 (1994)
241 ADAPTIVE POLICYMAKING: EVOLVING AND APPLYING EMERGENT SOLUTIONS FOR
U.S. COMMUNICATIONS POLICY, 61 Fed. Comm. L.J. 483, 590 (2009)
242 EASIER SAID THAN DONE? A CORPORATE LAW THEORY FOR ACTUALIZING SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY RHETORIC, 59 Fla. L. Rev. 771, 826 (2007)
243 ADHERING TO OUR VIEWS: JUSTICES BRENNAN AND MARSHALL AND THE
RELENTLESS DISSENT TO DEATH AS A PUNISHMENT, 22 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 591, 694 (1995)
244 REAPPRAISING THE REAL ENTITY THEORY OF THE CORPORATION, 21 Fla. St. U. L. Rev.
1061, 1123 (1994)
245 CHALLENGING CORPORATE "HUMANITY': LEGAL DISEMBODIMENT, EMBODIMENT
AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 7 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 511, 543 (2007)
246 TAX DISCRIMINATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF U.S. AND EU APPROACHES, 7
Fla. Tax Rev. 47, 132 (2005)
247 CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE TOO: A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO THE
CORPORATE PERSONHOOD PUZZLE, 15 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 97+
(2009)
248 THE PRAGMATIC POPULISM OF JUSTICE STEVENS'S FREE SPEECH JURISPRUDENCE,
74 Fordham L. Rev. 2201, 2240 (2006)
249 HOW MUCH ACCESS? HOW MUCH JUSTICE?, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 865, 881 (2004)
250 THE PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATION AND THE INSURABILITY OF PUNITIVE
DAMAGES, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 1383, 1408+ (1985)
251 THE PRIVATIZING OF PUBLIC WEALTH, 23 Fordham Urb. L.J. 101, 153+ (1995)
252 THE UNIFICATION OF CORPORATE LAWS: THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY AND THE RACE TO LAXITY, 3 Geo. Mason Indep. L. Rev. 1, 95+ (1994)
253 THE ORIGINAL SENSE OF THE (EQUAL) PROTECTION CLAUSE: SUBSEQUENT
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION, 19 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 219, 310 (2009)
254 SPHERES OF LIBERTY: CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF LIBERTY IN AMERICAN CULTURE
BY MICHAEL KAMMEN. MADISON WIS.: UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PRESS (1986) xiv,
191 pp. $19.50. A MACHINE THAT WOULD GO OF ITSELF: THE CONSTITUTION IN AM, 56
Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 239, 245 (1987)
255 PRETENSE AND OUR TWO CONSTITUTIONS, 54 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 375, 403+ (1986)
256 THE INDEPENDENT CORPORATE BOARD: A MEANS TO WHAT END?, 52 Geo. Wash. L.
Rev. 534, 556+ (1984)
257 GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS-NONRESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATIONS-THE FEDERAL

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 GOVERNMENT VIOLATES A CONTRACTOR'S DUE PROCESS LIBERTY INTEREST BY
FAILING TO PROVIDE PRIOR NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT CHARGES
CONTAINED IN NONRES, 50 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 90, 110+ (1981)
258 "ECONOMIC RIGHTS,' IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS, AND THE SCOPE OF
SECTION 1983, 77 Geo. L.J. 1493, 1566 (1989)
259 THE CLASSICAL CORPORATION IN AMERICAN LEGAL THOUGHT, 76 Geo. L.J. 1593,
1642+ (1988)
260 SELECTIVE INCORPORATION: REVISITED, 71 Geo. L.J. 253, 338+ (1982)
261 MINORITIES AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, 20 Ga. L. Rev. 917, 933 (1986)
262 BUYING BACK THE FIRST AMENDMENT: REGULATION OF DISPROPORTIONATE
CORPORATE SPENDING IN BALLOT ISSUE CAMPAIGNS, 17 Ga. L. Rev. 675, 758+ (1983)
263 THE ENTITLEMENT OF CHIMPANZEES TO THE COMMON LAW WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DE HOMINE REPLEGIANDO, 37 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 219, 280 (2007)
264 A CENTURY OF SOCIAL REFORM: THE JUDICIAL ROLE, 4 Green Bag 2d 157, 168 (2001)
265 FRANKENSTEIN INCORPORATED: THE RISE OF CORPORATE POWER AND
PERSONHOOD IN THE UNITED STATES, 28 Hamline L. Rev. 203, 204+ (2005)
266 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY, "REAL DIFFERENCES," AND
"SEPARATE-BUT-EQUAL" IN UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA, 116 S.CT. 2264 (1996), 20
Hamline L. Rev. 471, 506 (1996)
267 RULE 11: A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY: A CASE ANALYSIS OF PAVELIC
& LEFLORE v. MARVEL ENTERTAINEMENT GROUP, 110 S. CT. 456 (1989), 13 Hamline L.
Rev. 373, 406 (1990)
268 CRIMINAL LAW SANCTUARIES, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 321, 391 (2003)
269 IN DEFENSE OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY, 23 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 833, 858
(2000)
270 CAPACITY TO GOVERN, 12 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 105, 112 (1989)
271 THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, 12 Harv. J.L. &
Pub. Pol'y 43, 52 (1989)
272 REDRESSING THE BALANCE: A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1 Harv. J.L.
& Pub. Pol'y 87, 103+ (1978)
273 THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE: THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND TENTATIVE
EXPLANATIONS FOR ITS CONTINUED PRIMACY, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1480, 1501 (2002)
274 WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PERSONS: THE LANGUAGE OF A
LEGAL FICTION, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 1745, 1768+ (2001)
275 HOLMES'S LEGACY AND THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 8 History of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Troubled Beginnings of the Modern State, 1888-1910. By Owen M. Fiss.
New York: Macmillan, Inc. 1993. Pp. xix, 426. $, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 2027, 2046 (1995)
276 THE CONSTITUTION OF CHANGE: LEGAL FUNDAMENTALITY WITHOUT
FUNDAMENTALISM, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 30, 117 (1993)
277 UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS, STATE POWER, AND THE LIMITS OF CONSENT, 102
Harv. L. Rev. 4, 104 (1988)
278 HOW DOES THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISH JUSTICE?, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1026, 1042 (1988)
279 VI. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, 100 Harv. L. Rev.
1740, 1781 (1987)
280 IN DEFENSE OF JUDICIAL CANDOR, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731, 750 (1987)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

281 THE CITY AS A LEGAL CONCEPT, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1059, 1154+ (1980)
282 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1131 (1977)
283 II. THE BACKGROUND OF SECTION 1983, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1137, 1190 (1977)
284 I. INTRODUCTION, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1067, 1076 (1969)
285 THE REQUIREMENT OF A TRIAL-TYPE HEARING, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 193, 280+ (1956)
286 LIMITING STATE ACTION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: CONSEQUENCES OF
ABANDONING THE THEORY OF FIRST AMENDMENT INCORPORATION., 67 Harv. L. Rev.
1016, 1030 (1954)
287 THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW By Benjamin F. Wright. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co. 1942. Pp. viii, 276. $2.25, 56 Harv. L. Rev. 484, 485+ (1942)
288 TRUTH AND FICTION ABOUT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT By Louis B. Boudin.
(1938) 16 N. Y. U. L. Q. Rev. 19-82 The "Conspiracy Theory" of the Fourteenth Amendment By
Howard Jay Graham. Part One, (1938) 47 Yale L. J. 371-403, r, 52 Harv. L. Rev. 851, 860 (1939)
289 THE LIFE OF JOHN MCLEAN By Francis P. Weisenburger. Columbus: The Ohio State University
Press. 1937. Pp. ix, 244 Chief Justice Waite By Bruce R. Trimble. Princeton: The Princeton
University Press. 1938. Pp. ix, 320, 51 Harv. L. Rev. 1306, 1310 (1938)
290 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FREEDOM OF SPEECH - RIGHT OF A CORPORATION TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, 48 Harv. L. Rev. 507, 507 (1935)
291 JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENTS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN A STATE, 32 Harv. L.
Rev. 871, 882+ (1919)
292 JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 26 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 41
(1912)
293 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PERSONAL RIGHTS - WHETHER CORPORATIONS ARE
ENTITLED TO PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 671, 671
(1911)
294 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING CORPORATIONS EXCLUSIVELY, 20
Harv. L. Rev. 634, 635 (1907)
295 AVATAR RIGHTS IN A CONSTITUTIONLESS WORLD, 32 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 137,
156+ (2009)
296 CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO INDUCE WAIVERS OF STATE SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY: THE CONDITIONAL SPENDING POWER (AND BEYOND), 29 Hastings Const.
L.Q. 439, 525 (2002)
297 THE MARLBORO MAN'S SECRET VERSUS THE PUBLIC HEALTH: TRADE SECRETS AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS IN PHILLIP MORRIS V. REILLY, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q.
829, 859 (2001)
298 OF ELEPHANTS AND EMBRYOS: A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL
PERSONHOOD, 59 Hastings L.J. 369, 406 (2007)
299 BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE LEGAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SELF: MANAGING
IDENTITY IN SCIENCE, THE MARKET, AND SOCIETY, 51 Hastings L.J. 909, 952+ (2000)
300 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS - STYLE AND SUBSTANCE: AN APPEAL FOR REFORM, 47
Hastings L.J. 167, 181+ (1995)
301 PERSONALIZING THE IMPERSONAL: CORPORATIONS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 41
Hastings L.J. 577, 581+ (1990)
302 An Antitrust Allegory, 38 Hastings L.J. 517, 545 (1987)
303 A RIGHT TO NO MEANINGFUL REVIEW UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE: THE
AFTERMATH OF JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 AGENCIES, 16 Health Matrix 723, 783 (2006)
304 EASING DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF STATE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY STATUTES IN
THE CONTEXT OF A TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN A SMALL BUSINESS, 24 Hofstra L. Rev.
1151, 1193+ (1996)
305 THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING! THE COURT-CREATED AMERICAN
CONCEPT OF IMMUNITY: THE NEGATION OF EQUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
UNDER LAW, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 981, 1067 (1996)
306 A VERY RATIONAL COURT, 30 Hous. L. Rev. 1509, 1595+ (1993)
307 THE UNHAPPY HISTORY OF ECONOMIC RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND
PROSPECTS FOR THEIR CREATION AND RENEWAL, 43 How. L.J. 281, 342 (2000)
308 COMMENT ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL-JURISDICTION STATUTE: 28 U.S.C. S 1367, 74 Ind.
L.J. 223, 239 (1998)
309 CORPORATE REGULATION AND THE ORIGINS OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, 66
Ind. L.J. 53, 136+ (1990)
310 THE COMMON LAW, LABOR AND ANTITRUST, 11 Indus. Rel. L.J. 461, 539 (1989)
311 PERSONS AND CITIZENS IN CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHT, 8 Int'l J. Const. L. 9, 29 (2010)
312 THE ANTI-CHAIN STORE MOVEMENT, LOCALIST IDEOLOGY, AND THE REMNANTS OF
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTION, 1920-1940, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 1011, 1094 (2005)
313 ESSENTIAL SPEECH: WHY CORPORATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 995, 1070
(1998)
314 STATE PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION AND NONRESIDENT CORPORATIONS: THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE AS A TREATY OF NONDISCRIMINATION, 73
Iowa L. Rev. 351, 406+ (1988)
315 THE CORPORATE DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF AS FIRST AMENDMENT "PUBLIC FIGURE':
NAILING THE JELLYFISH, 68 Iowa L. Rev. 35, 86+ (1982)
316 CONFORMING TO THE RULE OF LAW: WHEN PERSON AND HUMAN BEING FINALLY
MEAN THE SAME THING IN FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE, 22 Issues L.
& Med. 119, 195+ (2007)
317 QUALITY-OF-LIFE ETHICS AND CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE: THE DEMISE OF
NATURAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL PROTECTION FOR THE DISABLED AND INCOMPETENT,
2 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 71, 130 (1986)
318 THE DIVIDEND PUZZLE: ARE SHARES ENTITLED TO THE RESIDUAL?, 32 J. Corp. L. 103,
159 (2006)
319 BEFORE COMPETITION: ORIGINS OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE, 32 J. Corp. L.
33, 101+ (2006)
320 THE CORPORATION AS GOD, 30 J. Corp. L. 501, 538 (2005)
321 FEDERALISM, REGULATORY COMPETITION, AND THE LIMITED LIABILITY
MOVEMENT: THE COYOTE HOWLED AND THE HERD STAMPEDED, 26 J. Corp. L. 951, 981
(2001)
322 THEORY OF THE FIRM: WHAT A CORPORATION IS, 25 J. Corp. L. 375, 381 (2000)
323 LBOS AND MBOS IN THE TAKEOVER ALPHABET SOUP SOME QUESTIONS FOR
LAWYERS, ANSWERS FROM AN ACCOUNTANT, 15 J. Corp. L. 171, 198+ (1990)
324 DISREGARDING THE SEPARATE CORPORATE ENTITY OF CAPTIVE INSURANCE
COMPANIES: A VIOLATION OF THE MOLINE PROPERTIES DOCTRINE, 14 J. Corp. L. 399,
417 (1989)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

325 THE "EVOLUTION' OF THE SUPREME COURT'S POLITICAL SPENDING DOCTRINE:
RESTRICTING CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGNS
AFTER CITIZENS AGAINST RENT CONTROL v. CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, 8 J.
Corp. L. 79, 110 (1982)
326 CORPORATE SPEECH IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS, 7 J. Corp. L. 265, 283 (1982)
327 GROUP THINK: THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY AND COLLECTIVE REASON, 98 J. Crim. L. &
Criminology 147, 206 (2007)
328 ULTRA VIRES STATUTES: ALIVE, KICKING, AND A MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING THE
SCALIA STANDING GAUNTLET IN ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION, 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig.
75, 118+ (2009)
329 PAUL HAWKEN'S RISKY ROMANCE WITH ECONOMICS The Ecology of Commerce: A
Declaration of Sustainability. By Paul Hawken. Harper Business 1993. Pp. XVI, 250. $23.00, 11 J.
Envtl. L. & Litig. 153, 159+ (1996)
330 ERASING RACE?: A CRITICAL RACE FEMINIST VIEW OF INTERNET IDENTITY-
SHIFTING, 3 J. Gender Race & Just. 439, 473 (2000)
331 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN ENFORCEMENT OF FLORIDA'S NET BAN, 15 J. Land Use & Envtl.
L. 55, 91+ (1999)
332 THE STRUCTURE OF THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GUARANTEE, 11 J.L. & Religion 355, 409
(1995)
333 WHAT IS THE SOUND OF A CORPORATION SPEAKING? HOW THE COGNITIVE THEORY
OF METAPHOR CAN HELP LAWYERS SHAPE THE LAW, 2 J. Ass'n Legal Writing Directors
169, 208 (2004)
334 HUMAN RIGHTS FOR TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, 16 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 197,
249+ (2007)
335 A RETURN TO DESCARTES: PROPERTY, PROFIT, AND THE CORPORATE OWNERSHIP OF
ANIMALS, 70-WTR Law & Contemp. Probs. 89, 115+ (2007)
336 WHY WE NEED GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR CORPORATE DISCLOSURE, 69-SUM Law &
Contemp. Probs. 167, 186 (2006)
337 LIBERTY WITHOUT EQUALITY: THE PROPERTY-RIGHTS CONNECTION IN A "NEGATIVE
CITIZENSHIP" REGIME, 21 Law & Soc. Inquiry 1, 65 (1996)
338 CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND STATE FALSE CLAIMS ACTS: EVALUATING THE
USE OF QUI TAM PROCEEDINGS TO REVOKE THE CHARTERS OF CORPORATE
POLLUTERS, 12 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 267, 294 (2008)
339 5 Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 109, CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT AND THE
AMORALITY OF LARGE CORPORATIONS: TIME TO ABOLISH CORPORATE
PERSONHOOD (2004)
340 PRODUCT LIABILITY AND THE POLITICS OF CORPORATE PRESENCE: IDENTITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN MACPHERSON V. BUICK, 35 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 3, 64+ (2001)
341 THE CORPORATION IN ELECTION LAW, 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1243, 1272+ (1999)
342 BEYOND BELLOTTI, 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 133, 220 (1998)
343 THE CORPORATE "PERSON": A NEW ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO A FLAWED METHOD
OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, 37 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 61, 109+ (2005)
344 THE CORPORATION AS SOVEREIGN, 60 Me. L. Rev. 129, 164 (2008)
345 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY? GROUP RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION: THE SPECIAL
CASE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, 1 Margins: Md. Interdisc. Pub. On Race, Religion, Gender, &
Class 51, 81 (2001)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

346 PRIORITIZING JUSTICE: COMBATING CORPORATE CRIME FROM TASK FORCE TO TOP
PRIORITY, 93 Marq. L. Rev. 971, 1019+ (2010)
347 HAPPY NO MORE: FEDERALISM DERAILED BY THE COURT THAT WOULD BE KING OF
PUNITIVE DAMAGES, 64 Md. L. Rev. 461, 540+ (2005)
348 PROFESSIONALS, BUSINESS PRACTITIONERS, AND PRUDENTIAL JUSTICE, 39 McGeorge
L. Rev. 835, 849 (2008)
349 THE JURISPRUDENTIAL SIN OF TREATING DIFFERENTS ALIKE: EMERGENCE OF FULL
FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR CORPORATE SPEAKERS, 17 Mem. St. U. L. Rev.
173, 219+ (1987)
350 OF METAPHOR, METONYMY, AND CORPORATE MONEY: RHETORICAL CHOICES IN
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION, 58 Mercer L. Rev.
949, 990+ (2007)
351 THE ILLUSION OF LAW: THE LEGITIMATING SCHEMAS OF MODERN POLICY AND
CORPORATE LAW, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 149+ (2004)
352 RECOVERING THE ORIGINAL FOURTH AMENDMENT, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 547, 750 (1999)
353 THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND RECONSTRUCTION. BY AKHIL REED AMAR.
NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 1998. PP. XV, 441. $30., 97 Mich. L. Rev. 1520, 1559
(1999)
354 PRIVACY'S PROBLEM AND THE LAW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 93 Mich. L. Rev. 1016,
1078 (1995)
355 TRANSFORMING HISTORY IN THE POSTMODERN ERA; The Transformation of American
Law, 1870-1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy. By Morton J. Horwitz. New York: Oxford
University Press. 1992. Pp. ix, 361. $30., 91 Mich. L. Rev. 1315, 1352 (1993)
356 THE EUROPEAN ALTERNATIVE TO UNIFORMITY IN CORPORATION LAWS, 89 Mich. L.
Rev. 2150, 2200 (1991)
357 CORPORATIONS AND SOCIETY: POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY. EDITED BY WARREN J.
SAMUELS AND ARTHUR S. MILLER. NEW YORK: GREENWOOD PRESS. 1987. Pp. xv, 328.
$45., 86 Mich. L. Rev. 1243, 1243+ (1988)
358 FEDERALISM AND COMPANY LAW, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 1163, 1168+ (1984)
359 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AS A SOURCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR
NONPOLITICAL SPEECH, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 247, 316 (2005)
360 SAN BERNARDINO PHYSICIANS' SERVICES MEDICAL GROUP, INC. v. COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO: CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PUBLIC CONTRACT PROPERTY
INTERESTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 879, 920 (1990)
361 THE MEANINGS OF EMPLOYER: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, 11 Miss. C. L. Rev. 309, 348 (1991)
362 EQUAL PROTECTION FOR FOREIGN AND ALIEN CORPORATIONS: TOWARDS
INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY FOR A QUASI-SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION, 59 Mo. L. Rev. 569,
677+ (1994)
363 JUDGE BORK: TRAPPED BY "PERSONHOOD'? SENATE COULD MAKE IT TOUGH FOR
HIM, 8/31/87 Nat'l L.J. 13, col. 1, 13, col. 1+ (1987)
364 THE MYTHICAL EROSION OF MENS REA, 23-WTR Nat. Resources & Env't 29, 31 (2009)
365 PERSISTENCE AND DISINTEGRATION: NEW MEXICO'S COMMUNITY LAND GRANTS IN
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, 48 Nat. Resources J. 847, 856 (2008)
366 FRAGMENTATION OF PUBLIC DOMAIN LAW AND POLICY: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
"SHIFT-TO-RETENTION" THESIS, 39 Nat. Resources J. 649, 753+ (1999)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

367 CORRUPTION, CORROSION, AND CORPORATE POLITICAL SPEECH, 70 Neb. L. Rev. 689,
753+ (1991)
368 171 New Jersey Law Journal 1053, THE ELEVATED HEADNOTE TOP COURT MAY REVISIT
NOTION, NOTED BY A COURT REPORTER 117 YEARS AGO, THAT A CORPORATION IS
ENTITLED TO FREE SPEECH (2003)
369 MOVING CLOSER TO ELIMINATING DISCRIMINATION IN JURY SELECTION: A
CHALLENGE TO THE PEREMPTORY, 7 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 204, 242 (1989)
370 NEXT WAVE ORGANIZING AND THE SHIFT TO A NEW PARADIGM OF LABOR LAW, 50
N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 515, 559 (2006)
371 STATE TAKEOVER STATUTES AND CORPORATE THEORY: THE REVIVAL OF AN OLD
DEBATE, 64 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 806, 825+ (1989)
372 WITH DISDAIN FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRAFT: THE PROPOSED VICTIMS' RIGHTS
AMENDMENT, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 371, 395 (2000)
373 LEGAL PERSONHOOD FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES, 70 N.C. L. Rev. 1231, 1287 (1992)
374 PARITY AND THE LITIGATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES
AND GERMANY: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CHEMERINSKY'S LITIGANT CHOICE
PRINCIPLE, 15 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 747, 781 (1995)
375 FORCED LABOR: A THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT DEFENSE OF ABORTION, 84 Nw. U. L.
Rev. 480, 535 (1990)
376 THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CHANGE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT: THE HUMAN LIFE BILL, 77 Nw. U. L. Rev. 129, 142 (1982)
377 THE "PERSON" AT FEDERAL LAW: A FRAMEWORK AND A RICO TEST SUITE, 84 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 2239, 2267+ (2009)
378 FROM PUBLIC SQUARE TO MARKET SQUARE: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FIRST
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF CORPORATE RELIGIOUS SPEECH,
83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1713, 1777+ (2008)
379 STATES ARE PEOPLE TOO, 75 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1121, 1131+ (2000)
380 POLITICS v. THE CLOISTER: DECIDING WHEN THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD DEFER
TO CONGRESSIONAL FACTFINDING UNDER THE POST-CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS, 59
Notre Dame L. Rev. 337, 398 (1984)
381 PUBLISH OR PERISH: THE NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW
PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF AN OTHERWISE
FLAWLESS LAW, 1 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus. 139, 218+ (2004)
382 BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION: FORTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FACT, 26 Ohio N.U.
L. Rev. 171, 182 (2000)
383 THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, 16 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 403, 510+
(1989)
384 THE LOST COMPROMISE: REASSESSING THE EARLY UNDERSTANDING IN COURT AND
CONGRESS ON INCORPORATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, 61 Ohio St. L.J. 1051, 1173 (2000)
385 STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ARE PERSONS TOO: THE FLATOW MISTAKE, 61 Ohio
St. L.J. 1301, 1332+ (2000)
386 CHRISTOPHER G. TIEDEMAN, "LAISSEZ-FAIRE CONSTITUTIONALISM' AND THE
DILEMMAS OF SMALL-SCALE PROPERTY IN THE GILDED AGE, 51 Ohio St. L.J. 1349,
1384 (1990)
387 LAW'S LUNACY: W.S. GILBERT AND HIS DEUS EX LEGE, 83 Or. L. Rev. 1035, 1079 (2004)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

388 ABORTION RIGHTS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS: FIGHTING THE ABORTION WAR IN
THE STATE COURTS, 70 Or. L. Rev. 593, 628 (1991)
389 AWAKENING A SLEEPING GIANT: CREATING A QUASI-PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
REVOKING CORPORATE CHARTERS IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS,
13 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 219, 280+ (1995)
390 OF PERSONS AND THE CRIMINAL LAW: (SECOND TIER) PERSONHOOD AS A
PREREQUISITE FOR VICTIMHOOD, 28 Pace L. Rev. 759, 781+ (2008)
391 TOT CAPITA TOT SENTENTIAE: AN EXTENSION (FN2) OR MISAPPLICATION OF
RAWLSIAN JUSTICE, 110 Penn St. L. Rev. 283, 343 (2005)
392 CORPORATIONS AS SHIPS: AN INQUIRY INTO PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND
INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY, 19 Pepp. L. Rev. 49, 98+ (1991)
393 DISABLING CORPORATE SOVEREIGNTY IN A TRANSNATIONAL LAWSUIT, 29 PoLAR
Pol. & Legal Anthropology Rev. 23, 31+ (2006)
394 DEGENERATE DEMOCRACY: THE NEOLIBERAL AND CORPORATE CAPTURE OF
AMERICA'S AGENDA, 24 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 9, 15+ (2004)
395 CORPORATE PERSONHOOD: HOW THE COURTS HAVE EMPLOYED BOGUS
JURISPRUDENCE TO GRANT CORPORATIONS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INTENDED
FOR INDIVIDUALS, 28 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 523, 584+ (2010)
396 THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON": APPLYING THE CASEY DECISION TO ROE V. WADE, 19
Regent U. L. Rev. 235, 250+ (2007)
397 EVOLUTION, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
JURISPRUDENCE, 13 Regent U. L. Rev. 513, 570 (2001)
398 THE LEGALITY AND MORALITY OF USING DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT UNBORN
CHILDREN FROM ABORTIONISTS, 5 Regent U. L. Rev. 83, 151 (1995)
399 EQUAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS BITE GROWS STRONGER: PLYLER v. DOE, 17 Rev.
Juridica U. Inter. P.R. 335, 353 (1983)
400 ORIGINALISM AND CITIZENS UNITED: THE STRUGGLE OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD,
7 Rutgers Bus. L.J. 187, 209+ (2010)
401 THE PATH OF E-LAW: LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND DEMOCRACY FROM THE COLONIES
TO THE REPUBLIC OF CYBERIA, 24 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 223, 304+ (1998)
402 A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, DUE PROCESS AND THE GATT: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO
THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OF THE PROCESS PATENT ACT OF 1988?, 18 Rutgers
Computer & Tech. L.J. 65, 108 (1992)
403 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE EVOLUTION, 6
Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 334, 433+ (2009)
404 AN ESSAY ON THE MARKET AS GOD: LAW, SPIRITUALITY, AND THE ECO-CRISIS, 6
Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion 1+ (2004)
405 THE NONPRIVACY APPLICATIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, 21 Rutgers L.J. 537,
601 (1990)
406 BEYOND CORPORATE SPEECH: CORPORATE POWERS IN A FEDERALIST SYSTEM, 37
Rutgers L. Rec. 20, 22+ (2010)
407 BEYOND THE COUNTER-MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY: JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING
IN A POLYNOMIC WORLD, 53 Rutgers L. Rev. 781, 864 (2001)
408 MOVING BEYOND ANIMAL RIGHTS: A LEGAL/CONTRACTUALIST CRITIQUE, 46 San
Diego L. Rev. 27, 84+ (2009)
409 THE "MOST VALUABLE SORT OF PROPERTY": CONSTRUCTING WHITE IDENTITY IN

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 AMERICAN LAW, 1880-1940, 40 San Diego L. Rev. 881, 946 (2003)
410 THE SANCTITY OF ASSOCIATION: THE CORPORATION AND INDIVIDUALISM IN
AMERICAN LAW, 37 San Diego L. Rev. 101, 165+ (2000)
411 HALF-HUMAN CREATURES, PLANTS & INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: MUSINGS ON
RAMIFICATIONS OF WESTERN NOTIONS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE
NEWMAN-RIFKIN ATTEMPT TO PATENT A THEORETICAL HALF-HUMAN CREATURE, 21
Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 383, 450 (2005)
412 AND TO THE EMPIRE FOR WHICH IT STANDS: THE CLEARSIGHTED REVISIONISM OF
JAMES G. WILSON'S THE IMPERIAL REPUBLIC. BURLINGTON, VERMONT: ASHGATE
PUBLISHING COMPANY, 2002. PP. 273. HARD COVER. $ 89.95., 44 Santa Clara L. Rev. 621,
642+ (2004)
413 NEW STRATEGIES FOR JUSTICE: LINKING CORPORATE LAW WITH PROGRESSIVE
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AN INTRODUCTION, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 225, 234 (2005)
414 INTRODUCTION TO THE METAPHORS OF CORPORATE LAW, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 273,
295+ (2005)
415 CORPORATIONS AND THE PUBLIC PURPOSE: RESTORING THE BALANCE, 4 Seattle J. for
Soc. Just. 305, 318+ (2005)
416 CORPORATE PERSONHOOD AND THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATE SPEECH, 30 Seattle U. L.
Rev. 863, 873+ (2007)
417 THE CODE FOR CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP: STATES SHOULD AMEND STATUTES
GOVERNING CORPORATIONS AND ENABLE CORPORATIONS TO BE GOOD CITIZENS, 29
Seattle U. L. Rev. 275, 300 (2005)
418 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF STATE DEMOCRACY: ROMER v. EVANS, 7 Seton Hall
Const. L.J. 1, 67+ (1996)
419 ATLANTIC CITY SPECIAL: WHETHER THE CASINO EXCEPTION TO THE NEW JERSEY
SMOKE-FREE AIR ACT COMPORTS WITH THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION'S GENERAL
PROHIBITION OF SPECIAL LAWS, 38 Seton Hall L. Rev. 359, 396 (2008)
420 INFORMATION PRIVACY AND CORPORATE POWER: TOWARDS A RE-IMAGINATION OF
INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW, 37 Seton Hall L. Rev. 127, 169 (2006)
421 RESPECTING A STATE'S TORT LAW, WHILE CONFINING ITS REACH TO THAT STATE, 31
Seton Hall L. Rev. 698, 733 (2001)
422 HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION IN POPULAR LEGAL AND POLITICAL CULTURE, 24
Seton Hall L. Rev. 1969, 2029 (1994)
423 SELF-INTEREST AND CONCERN FOR OTHERS IN THE OWNER-MANAGED FIRM: A
SUGGESTED APPROACH TO DISSOLUTION AND FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION IN CLOSE
CORPORATIONS, 22 Seton Hall L. Rev. 646, 708 (1992)
424 THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: AN ANALYSIS AND CALL FOR REFORM,
17 Seton Hall L. Rev. 42, 72+ (1987)
425 THE TORTIOUS LOSS OF A NONVIABLE FETUS: A MISCARRIAGE LEADS TO A
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, 61 S.C. L. Rev. 915, 937 (2010)
426 TAKING STOCK OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S APPLICATION TO SECURITIES
REGULATION, 58 S.C. L. Rev. 789, 830 (2007)
427 AMENDMENT XXVIII? DEFENDING CORPORATE SPEECH RIGHTS, 58 S.C. L. Rev. 855,
869+ (2007)
428 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH, 58 S.C. L. Rev. 913, 933+ (2007)
429 DIGITAL DOSSIERS AND THE DISSIPATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY, 75 S.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Cal. L. Rev. 1083, 1167 (2002)
430 FICTIONAL SHAREHOLDERS: FOR WHOM ARE CORPORATE MANAGERS TRUSTEES,
REVISITED, 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1021, 1104 (1996)
431 UNDERSTANDING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY CONTRACT CLAUSE: THE ROLE OF
THE PROPERTY-PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION AND "TAKINGS" CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE,
60 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1, 108 (1986)
432 UNINCORPORATED BUSINESSES UNDER THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE,
25 S. Ill. U. L.J. 585, 607 (2001)
433 A DUBIOUS GRAIL: SEEKING TORT LAW EXPANSION AND LIMITED PERSONHOOD AS
STEPPING STONES TOWARD ABOLISHING ANIMALS' PROPERTY STATUS, 60 SMU L.
Rev. 3, 54 (2007)
434 A NATURAL RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE ON EMINENT DOMAIN IN CALIFORNIA: A
RATIONALE FOR MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF "PUBLIC USE", 32 Sw. U. L. Rev.
569, 676 (2003)
435 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PERSONHOOD: FACT OR FICTION?, 73 St. John's L. Rev. 495,
540+ (1999)
436 DECLINE OF FREEDOM OF CONTRACT SINCE THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN
BUSINESS CORPORATION, 37 St. Louis U. L.J. 117, 168 (1992)
437 THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AS ARTICULATED IN
THE DISSENTS IN AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 24 St. Mary's L.J.
165, 196 (1992)
438 LEGAL FICTIONS AND JURISTIC TRUTH, 23 St. Thomas L. Rev. 1, 49 (2010)
439 REAL PROPERTY AND PEOPLEHOOD, 27 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 313, 395 (2008)
440 LEGAL BARRIERS TO INNOVATION: THE GROWING ECONOMIC COST OF
PROFESSIONAL CONTROL OVER CORPORATE LEGAL MARKETS, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 1689,
1732 (2008)
441 CONCEPTUALIZING CORPORATIONS AND KINSHIP: COMPARATIVE LAW AND
DEVELOPMENT THEORY IN A CHINESE PERSPECTIVE, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 1599, 1729 (2000)
442 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DURING THE LOCHNER ERA: PRIVACY, PROPERTY, AND
LIBERTY IN CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 555, 631 (1996)
443 THE NEW ECONOMIC THEORY OF THE FIRM: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES FROM
HISTORY, 41 Stan. L. Rev. 1471, 1527+ (1989)
444 DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND CORPORATIONS: "LURKING IN THE RECORD" AND "RIPE FOR
DECISION", 28 Stan. L. Rev. 805, 828+ (1976)
445 RANDONE REVISITED: DUE PROCESS PROTECTION FOR COMMERCIAL NECESSITIES,
26 Stan. L. Rev. 673, 688 (1974)
446 LEGAL CHANGE AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CORPORATION IN AMERICA, 24 Stan.
L. Rev. 765, 777 (1972)
447 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES: A DISSENTING OPINION, 15 Stan. L. Rev. 254, 308 (1963)
448 8 J. High Tech. L. 1, PULSE: THE COMING AGE OF SYSTEMS AND MACHINES INSPIRED
BY LIVING THINGS By Robert Frenay University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 2006, ISBN 978-0-
8032-1777-5 Price $24.95 (2009)
449 HOW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CHANGE (OR FAIL TO CHANGE) THE CONSTITUTION: THE
CASE OF THE NEW DEPARTURE, 39 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 27, 65+ (2005)
450 EQUAL PROTECTION AND STATE TAXATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS, 41 Tax Law. 83,
91+ (1987)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

451 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO DETERMINE "ENEMY COMBATANT" STATUS IN THE
WAR ON TERRORISM, 73 Tenn. L. Rev. 351, 414 (2006)
452 THE CONUNDRUM OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY: SEEKING A CONSISTENT
APPROACH TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CORPORATIONS IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS, 63 Tenn. L. Rev. 793, 806+ (1996)
453 POWERS INHERENT IN SOVEREIGNTY: INDIANS, ALIENS, TERRITORIES, AND THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY ORIGINS OF PLENARY POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 81
Tex. L. Rev. 1, 284 (2002)
454 FAMILY AT THE BIRTH OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 1195,
1234 (1999)
455 MAKING THE FIFTH: THE CONSTITUTIONALIZATION OF AMERICAN SELF-
INCRIMINATION DOCTRINE, 1791-1903, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 825, 922 (1999)
456 WHY IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PROTECTING STATE JUDGES
FROM POPULAR DEMOCRACY?, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 907, 987 (1997)
457 BEYOND DWORKIN'S DOMINIONS: INVESTMENTS, MEMBERSHIPS, THE TREE OF LIFE,
AND THE ABORTION QUESTION; LIFE'S DOMINION: AN ARGUMENT ABOUT
ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. BY RONALD DWORKIN. NEW
YORK: ALFRED A., 72 Tex. L. Rev. 559, 590+ (1994)
458 COMMERCE & COMMUNICATION, 71 Tex. L. Rev. 697, 746 (1993)
459 "ORIGINAL INTENT" IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SOME CRITICAL GLOSSES, 69 Tex.
L. Rev. 1001, 1107 (1991)
460 TELEVISION IS A SOCIAL-NOT A BIOLOGICAL OR TECHNOLOGICAL-PROBLEM, 68 Tex.
L. Rev. 1169, 1178 (1990)
461 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE DOCTRINE OF
VESTED RIGHTS AND OF IMPLIED LIMITATIONS OF LEGISLATURES, 3 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 43
(1924)
462 IF I WERE A CORPORATION, I'D BE A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSON, TOO, 10 Tex. Rev. L. &
Pol. 427, 447 (2006)
463 THE SUPREME COURT AND STATE TAXATION: 2002-2003 A VERDICT ON THE
CONTINUING VIABILITY OF EQUAL PROTECTION FOR BUSINESS, AND A FRESH
INTERPRETATION OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DEFERENCE TO OTHER STATES' LAWS,
9 St. & Loc. Tax Law. 87, 100 (2004)
464 ABSOLUTE PROTECTION FOR INTRACORPORATE PERSONNEL COMMUNICATIONS
UNDER DEFAMATION LAW: A PHILOSOPHICAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE
NONPUBLICATION DOCTRINE, 25 U. Mem. L. Rev. 155, 191 (1994)
465 BEFORE LOCHNER-DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 74 Tul. L. Rev. 1263, 1322 (2000)
466 HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN LIFE: AN UNEVEN FIT, 68 Tul. L. Rev. 1527, 1561+ (1994)
467 THE CORPORATION IS A PERSON: THE LANGUAGE OF A LEGAL FICTION, 61 Tul. L. Rev.
563, 609+ (1987)
468 BEYOND BALANCED BUDGETS, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STYLE, 33 Tulsa L.J. 561,
612 (1997)
469 LONE WOLF, OR HOW TO TAKE PROPERTY BY CALLING IT A "MERE CHANGE IN THE
FORM OF INVESTMENT", 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 37, 48 (2002)
470 THE FAILURE OF ANALOGY IN CONCEPTUALIZING PRIVATE ENTITY LIABILITY
UNDER SECTION 1983, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 967, 997 (2010)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

471 MARKETS AND DEMOCRACY: THE ILLEGITIMACY OF CORPORATE LAW, 74 UMKC L.
Rev. 41, 104+ (2005)
472 AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: RE-EXAMINING CORPORATE
POLITICAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, 11 U. Bridgeport L. Rev. 449, 487+
(1991)
473 TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONHOOD: A THEORY OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PERSONHOOD FOR TRANSGENIC HUMANOID SPECIES, 39 UCLA L.
Rev. 1425, 1510+ (1992)
474 THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ITS AVAILABILITY TO INSURED PERSONS, 36
UCLA L. Rev. 977, 1003 (1989)
475 THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CLASSICAL CORPORATION, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1677, 1683+
(1992)
476 LIBERTIES, FAIR VALUES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 91, 114
(1992)
477 THE PERSONIFICATION OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATION IN AMERICAN LAW, 54 U.
Chi. L. Rev. 1441, 1463+ (1987)
478 THE MORGAN "POWER' AND THE FORCED RECONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
DECISIONS, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 819, 863 (1986)
479 PERSONAL BODIES: A CORPOREAL THEORY OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, 6 U. Chi. L.
Sch. Roundtable 235, 250+ (1999)
480 SUPERDUMB DISCRIMINATION IN SUPERFUND: CERCLA SECTION 107 VIOLATES
EQUAL PROTECTION, 2002 U. Chi. Legal F. 331, 362 (2002)
481 REAWAKENING THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE IN ITS FIRST CENTURY, 13 U.
Dayton L. Rev. 417, 488 (1988)
482 BROKEN TRUST AND DIVIDED LOYALTIES: THE PARADOX OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN
CORPORATE REPRESENTATION, 8 U. D.C. L. Rev. 233, 253 (2004)
483 YICK WO RE-REVISITED: NONBLACK NONWHITES AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
HISTORY, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1427, 1440+ (2008)
484 CORPORATE SPEECH ON POLITICAL ISSUES: THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN CONFLICT
WITH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS?, 1985 U. Ill. L. Rev. 445, 469 (1985)
485 SCROOGE-THE RELUCTANT STAKEHOLDER: THEORETICAL PROBLEMS IN THE
SHAREHOLDER-STAKEHOLDER DEBATE, 14 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 193, 240 (2005)
486 ARE CORPORATIONS EVIL?, 58 U. Miami L. Rev. 811, 841+ (2004)
487 CORPORATE LEGAL THEORY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT: BELLOTTI AND
AUSTIN, 46 U. Miami L. Rev. 317, 378 (1991)
488 VESTED SENIORITY RIGHTS: A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH, 36 U. Miami L. Rev. 751, 778
(1982)
489 UNCONSCIOUS CLASSISM: ENTITY EQUALITY FOR SOLE PROPRIETORS, 11 U. Pa. J.
Const. L. 215, 275+ (2009)
490 THE LIMITED PATH DEPENDENCY OF PRECEDENT, 7 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 903, 1000 (2005)
491 CORPORATIONS WITHOUT LABOR: THE POLITICS OF PROGRESSIVE CORPORATE LAW,
151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1861, 1912 (2003)
492 ANTITRUST PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN THE FORMATIVE ERA: THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONCEPTUAL REACH OF STATE ANTITRUST LAW, 1880-1918,
135 U. Pa. L. Rev. 495, 593 (1987)
493 CORPORATE VICES AND CORPORATE VIRTUES: DO PUBLIC/PRIVATE DISTINCTIONS

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 MATTER?, 130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1441, 1509 (1982)
494 FREE ENTERPRISE VS. THE ENTREPRENEUR: REDEFINING THE ENTITIES SUBJECT TO
THE ANTITRUST LAWS, 125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1244, 1264+ (1977)
495 THE PATH OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, 124 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1212, 1259+ (1976)
496 REGULATORY DISPARITY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF
COMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY, 7 U.
Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 4, 4 (2007)
497 SECOND CLASS SPEAKERS: A PROPOSAL TO FREE PROTECTED CORPORATE SPEECH
FROM TORT LIABILITY, 70 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 555, 591 (2009)
498 DOCUMENTS AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev.
27, 81 (1986)
499 LAWYER ADVERTISING AND THE PHILOSOPHICAL ORIGINS OF THE COMMERCIAL
SPEECH DOCTRINE, 36 U. Rich. L. Rev. 91, 136 (2002)
500 ASSISTED SUICIDE AND THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT: A
PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMINATION OF THE MAJORITY OPINION IN COMPASSION IN
DYING v. WASHINGTON, 31 U.S.F. L. Rev. 399, 432 (1997)
501 NEW "CONSPIRACY THEORY" OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: NINETEENTH
CENTURY CHINESE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS JURISPRUDENCE, 29 U.S.F. L. Rev. 353, 388+ (1995)
502 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: A HISTORY OF LIBERTY IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE,
2 U. St. Thomas J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 125, 140 (2008)
503 EX PARTE YOUNG AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, 1890-1917,
40 U. Tol. L. Rev. 931, 970 (2009)
504 THE RECURRING PARADOX OF GROUPS IN THE LIBERAL STATE, 2010 Utah L. Rev. 47, 64
(2010)
505 BEYOND PLESSY: SPACE, STATUS, AND RACE IN THE ERA OF JIM CROW, 2000 Utah L.
Rev. 267, 299+ (2000)
506 700 FAMILIES TO FEED: THE CHALLENGE OF CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP, 36 Vand. J.
Transnat'l L. 619, 671+ (2003)
507 THE CASE FOR APPLYING THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO CORPORATIONS, 49 Vand. L.
Rev. 1313, 1346+ (1996)
508 THE CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN STATES: THE 1996
AMENDMENT TO THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT IN PERSPECTIVE, 41 Va.
J. Int'l L. 369, 426+ (2001)
509 SYMPOSIUM PAPER: WOULD JEFFERSON FILE SHARE?, 10 Va. J.L. & Tech. 9, 15+ (2005)
510 ULTRA VIRES LIVES! A STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE ILLEGALITY (WITH
NOTES ON HOW CORPORATE LAW COULD REINFORCE INTERNATIONAL LAW
NORMS), 87 Va. L. Rev. 1279, 1379 (2001)
511 SCHOOL CHOICE AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS, 86 Va. L. Rev. 117, 162+ (2000)
512 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE JUNCTION: THE EMERGENCE OF THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 81 Va. L. Rev.
1989, 2042+ (1995)
513 THE PRINCIPLE OF AGGREGATE AUTONOMY AND THE CALABRESIAN APPROACH TO
PRODUCTS LIABILITY, 74 Va. L. Rev. 677, 750 (1988)
514 FOREIGN STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION, 73 Va. L. Rev. 483, 558+ (1987)
515 CORPORATE STANDING TO ALLEGE RACE DISCRIMINATION IN CIVIL RIGHTS

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 ACTIONS, 69 Va. L. Rev. 1153, 1181+ (1983)
516 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND POPULISM, 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 313, 374 (2003)
517 "CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE" OR "CONSTITUTIONAL PEACE"? THE SUPREME COURT
AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, 65 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 11, 71+ (2008)
518 THE TRANSPLANTATION OF THE LEGAL DISCOURSE ON CORPORATE PERSONALITY
THEORIES: FROM GERMAN CODIFICATION TO BRITISH POLITICAL PLURALISM AND
AMERICAN BIG BUSINESS, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1421, 1469+ (2006)
519 THE RELEVANCE OF CORPORATE THEORY TO CORPORATE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT: COMMENT ON THE TRANSPLANTATION OF THE LEGAL DISCOURSE
ON CORPORATE PERSONALITY THEORIES, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1489, 1494+ (2006)
520 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MULTISTATUTE ANTITAKEOVER "SCHEMES" UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE: POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE WEST LYNN
CREAMERY DECISION, 52 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1475, 1519 (1995)
521 ACTIVIST SHAREHOLDERS, CORPORATE DIRECTORS, AND INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTMENT: SOME LESSONS FROM THE ROBBER BARONS, 50 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 977,
1042 (1993)
522 CORPORATE POLITICAL SPEECH, 49 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 109, 159 (1992)
523 REVOLUTIONARY LAWYERING: ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF POVERTY AND
WEALTH, 20 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 101, 168 (2006)
524 THE MODERN CORPORATION AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE: INCORPORATING
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ANALYSIS INTO FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE, 79
Wash. U. L.Q. 1, 87+ (2001)
525 EVIDENCE - THE MOTION IN LIMINE AND THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS:
ADVOCATING FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF THE NECESSITY DEFENSE FOR SOME OF
THE BAY STATE'S CIVILLY DISOBEDIENT, 27 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 299, 364 (2005)
526 RESCUING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE:
HOW "ATTRITION OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCESSES" BEGAT ACCIDENTAL AMBIGUITY;
HOW AMBIGUITY BEGAT SLAUGHTER-HOUSE, 18 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 445, 470 (2009)
527 THE CONSTITUTION AND THE OTHER CONSTITUTION, 10 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 359,
400 (2002)
528 A STORY FOR ALL SEASONS: AKHIL REED AMAR ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 8 Wm. &
Mary Bill Rts. J. 437, 461 (2000)
529 RECALLING WHY CORPORATE OFFICERS ARE FIDUCIARIES, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev.
1597, 1653 (2005)
530 FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER HITS THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: AN APPROACH TO
REGULATION OF CORPORATE POLITICAL EXPENDITURES, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 587,
643 (1991)
531 A HISTORY OF THE CORPORATE ENTITY'S ACCESSION TO POWER The Company: A Short
History of a Revolutionary Idea. By John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge. Modern Library,
2003. 191 pages. $19.95., 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1571, 1580 (2004)
532 THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION, 16 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev.
249, 303 (1990)
533 ANOTHER LOOK AT ECONOMIC SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, 1987 Wis. L. Rev. 265, 324
(1987)
534 THE ELUSIVE TRANSFORMATION, 6 Yale J.L. & Human. 137, 162+ (1994)
535 "NO DISTINCTION WOULD BE TOLERATED": THADDEUS STEVENS, DISABILITY, AND

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, 19 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev.
265, 301+ (2000)
536 AGAINST (AND FOR) MADISON: AN ESSAY IN PRAISE OF FACTIONS, 15 Yale L. & Pol'y
Rev. 553, 597 (1997)
537 SENTENCING ORGANIZATIONS AFTER BOOKER, 116 Yale L.J. 632, 666 (2006)
538 THE STORRS LECTURES: LIBERALS AND ROMANTICS AT WAR: THE PROBLEM OF
COLLECTIVE GUILT, 111 Yale L.J. 1499, 1573 (2002)
539 CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENTS AND PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA: A POLITICAL
SCIENTIST CONFRONTS BRUCE ACKERMAN'S WE THE PEOPLE, 108 Yale L.J. 2237, 2277
(1999)
540 THE COMMON LAW ORIGINS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPELLED REMEDIES, 107
Yale L.J. 77, 164+ (1997)
541 THE SUBSTANTIVE ORIGINS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 105 Yale L.J. 393, 447 (1995)
542 THE CRITICAL TRADITION IN THE WRITING OF AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY THE
TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN LAW, 1870-1960: THE CRISIS OF LEGAL
ORTHODOXY. BY MORTON J. HORWITZ. NEW YORK: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,
1992. PP. XII, 361. $, 102 Yale L.J. 1019, 1076 (1993)
543 JUDGING THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACTS, 100 Yale L.J. 1835, 1854+ (1991)
544 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE FOREIGN
INVESTMENT, 99 Yale L.J. 2023, 2042+ (1990)
545 SECTION 1983 REMEDIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF SUPREMACY CLAUSE RIGHTS, 97
Yale L.J. 1827, 1846 (1988)
546 FIGURING THE LAW: HOLISM AND TROPOLOGICAL INFERENCE IN LEGAL
INTERPRETATION, 97 Yale L.J. 823, 843+ (1988)
547 DERRICK BELL AND THE IDEOLOGY OF RACIAL REFORM: WILL WE EVER BE SAVED?
AND WE ARE NOT SAVED: THE ELUSIVE QUEST FOR RACIAL JUSTICE. BY DERRICK
BELL. BASIC BOOKS, INC., 1987. Pp. xii, 288. $19.95, 97 Yale L.J. 923, 947 (1988)
548 THE TEACHING OF CORPORATE LAW: A SOCRATIC INVESTIGATION OF LAW AND
BUREAUCRACY, 97 Yale L.J. 96, 114 (1987)
549 THE CREATION OF FETAL RIGHTS: CONFLICTS WITH WOMEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO LIBERTY, PRIVACY, AND EQUAL PROTECTION, 95 Yale L.J. 599, 625 (1986)
550 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE CORPORATE PERSON, 91 Yale L.J. 1641, 1658+ (1982)
551 LAYING THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REST, 91 Yale L.J. 425, 485 (1982)
552 BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AND STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, 91 Yale L.J. 235, 295 (1981)
553 THE CORPORATION AND THE CONSTITUTION: ECONOMIC DUE PROCESS AND
CORPORATE SPEECH, 90 Yale L.J. 1833, 1835+ (1981)
554 STATE CONTROL OVER POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS: FIRST AMENDMENT CHECKS ON
POWERS OF REGULATION, 66 Yale L.J. 545, 566+ (1957)
555 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS-STATE BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL BUSINESS, 59 Yale L.J.
737, 758 (1950)
556 THE SUPREME COURT AND PRIVATE RIGHTS, 47 Yale L.J. 1051, 1078 (1938)
557 FOUR LETTERS OF MR. JUSTICE FIELD, 47 Yale L.J. 1100, 1108 (1938)
558 THE "CONSPIRACY THEORY" OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 47 Yale L.J. 371, 403
(1938)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 559 THE CASE-CONCEPT AND SOME RECENT INDIRECT PROCEDURES FOR ATTACKING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUTES, 45 Yale L.J. 649, 671+
(1936)
560 THE SUPREME COURT AND AMERICAN CAPITALISM, 42 Yale L.J. 668, 701 (1933)
561 AFFECTATION WITH PUBLIC INTEREST, 39 Yale L.J. 1089, 1112 (1930)
562 WITNESS-PRIVILEGE-SELF-IINCRIMINATION.-COMMONWEALTH V. SOUTHERN
EXPRESS CO., 169 S. W. (KY.) 517, 24 Yale L.J. 349, 349 (1915)
563 WILL THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW STAND THE TEST OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT?, 23 Yale L.J. 330, 338+ (1914)
564 STATE CONTROL OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, 19 Yale L.J. 1, 16 (1909)
565 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION-TAXATION-PRIVATE CORPORATION, 14
Yale L.J. 178, 178 (1905)
566 127 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-7, 2000, STATE TAXES: FACTS. (2000)
567 127 BNA Daily Tax Report K-7, 2000, STATE TAXES: FACTS. (2000)
568 THE CYCLICAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE CORPORATE FORM: A HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, 30 Del. J. Corp. L. 767, 818+
(2005)
569 THE CORPORATE ENTITY IN AN ERA OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, 15 Del. J.
Corp. L. 283, 375+ (1990)
570 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: CONSTITUTIONALITY, ELEMENTS AND DEFENSE-THE DEFENSE
PERSPECTIVE, 387 Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice: Litigation 425
(1990)
571 THE NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALABAMA'S ADD-BACK STATUTE: WHY THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT MUST GRANT CERT IN VFJ VENTURES, 2009 TM Weekly State Reports 5
(2009)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings

572 Madeja v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Justices, 2010 WL 2967793, *2967793+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 23, 2010) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 10-138)
573 Federal Communications Com'n v. AT&T Inc., 2010 WL 2786980, *2786980+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 13, 2010) Brief in Opposition for Respondent AT&T Inc. (NO. 09-
1279)
574 VFJ Ventures, Inc. v. Surtees, 2009 WL 481244, *481244+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)
(U.S. Feb 20, 2009) Brief of Institute for Professionals in Taxation as Amicus Curiae in Support
of Petitioner (NO. 08-916)
575 Williams v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2008 WL 2724498, *2724498+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Jun 25, 2008) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 08-49)
576 Eddie EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. WALTER JONES CONSTRUCTION, the City of Oberlin, Ohio
Public Works Commission, Michael Sigg, Melvin Gravely, Respondents., 2000 WL 34014286,

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 *34014286+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jul 19, 2000) Respondents, the City of
Oberlin and Michael Sigg's, Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 99-
2025)
577 DOVE VALLEY BUSINESS PARK ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Ltd. Partnership; Havana
Street, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership and Gullwing Acres Limited Liability Co., a Wyoming
limited liability company; and Colorado National Bank, a federally chartered bank, as successor by
merger to Bank Western, a federal savings bank, Petitioners, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY, Colorado; and Adrian B. Bernie Ciazza, Treasurer,
Arapahoe County,, 1998 WL 34112072, *34112072+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S.
Feb 17, 1998) Brief in Opposition to Petion for A Writ of Certiorari (NO. 97-1183)
578 DOVE VALLEY BUSINESS PARK ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Ltd. Partnership; Havana
Street, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership and Gullwing Acres Limited Liability Co., a Wyoming
limited liability company; and Colorado National Bank, a federally chartered bank, as successor by
merger to Bank Western, a federal savings bank, Petitioners, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO; and Adrian B. Bernie Ciazza,
Treasurer, Arapahoe County,, 1998 WL 34112082, *34112082+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Jan 14, 1998) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 97-1183) "
579 Shahsultan JAFFER, Petitioner, v. Gilbert K. GRANET, et. al., Judge Marvin Aspen, and Robert F.
Klimek, et al., and Judge Nicholas Bua, Respondents., 1990 WL 10022753, *10022753+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Apr 19, 1990) ""In re Shahsultan Jaffer, Petitioner'', Petition
on Writ of Prohibition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Writ
of Mandamus to United States Attorney General (NO. 90-365)
580 Townley Mfg. Co. Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 1988 WL 1093403, *1093403+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Dec 13, 1988) Petition (NO. 88-988)
581 Allen v. People of the State of California, 1986 WL 766755, *766755+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (U.S. Sep 27, 1986) Petition (NO. 86-585)
582 Ernest v. U.S. Attorney for the Eastern Dist. of Virgi, 1986 WL 767190, *767190+ (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 28, 1986) Petition (NO. 85-1274)
583 Ernest v. U.S., 1985 WL 694715, *694715+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Dec 06,
1985) Petition (NO. 85-0980)
584 Atchison v. Apache County, 1971 WL 167532, *167532+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing)
(U.S. Feb 08, 1971) Jurisdictional Statement (NO. 1323)
585 Southland Racing Corp. v. Rodgers, 1970 WL 155577, *155577+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and
Filing) (U.S. Jun 05, 1970) Jurisdictional Statement (NO. 223)
586 In the matter of Thomas Neil THOMSON., 2006 WL 4045059, *4045059+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (Cal. Dec 11, 2006) Petition for Review of Recommendation of Review
Department of State Bar Court that Petitioner be Disbarred (NO. S147282)

Appellate Briefs
587 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2009 WL 2365209, *2365209+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Jul 31, 2009) Brief of Amicus Curiae Fidelis Center for Law and Policy and
Catholicvote.Com in Support of the Appellant on Supplemental Question (NO. 08-205)
588 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2009 WL 2365224, *2365224+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Jul 31, 2009) Brief of Amicus Curiae American Independent Business Alliance in Support
of Appellee on Supplemental Question (NO. 08-205)
589 Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2006 WL 2317053, *2317053+ (Appellate

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Brief) (U.S. Aug 03, 2006) Amicus Curiae Brief by Legal Defense for Unborn Children in
Support of Neither Party (NO. 05-1382)
590 Gonzales v. Carhart, 2006 WL 1546801, *1546801+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. May 22, 2006) Motion
for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae with Brief by Legal Defense for Unborn Children in
Support of Neither Party (NO. 05-380)
591 Gonzales v. Carhart, 2006 WL 1386209, *1386209+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. May 17, 2006) Amicus
Curiae Brief of Right to Life Advocates, Inc. in Support of the Petitioner (NO. 05-380)
592 Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 2005 WL 2427641, *2427641+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Sep 26, 2005) Amicus Curiae Brief by Legal Defense for Unborn Children in Support of
Neither Party (NO. 04-1244, 04-1352)
593 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 2005 WL 1582852, *1582852+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Jul 01, 2005) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae With Brief by Legal
Defense for Unborn Children in Support of Neither Party%tc (NO. 04-1144)
594 Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 2003 WL 1844818, *1844818+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 04, 2003) Brief
Amicus Curiae of Reclaimdemocracy.com in Support of Respondent (NO. 02-575) "
595 Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 2001 WL 883679, *883679+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 20,
2001) BRIEF OF RESPONDENT (NO. 00-860)
596 Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000 WL 207160, *207160+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 14, 2000) MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE WITH BRIEF BY LEGAL DEFENSE FOR
UNBORN CHILDREN IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS (NO. 99-830)
597 Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 1999 WL 1272933, *1272933+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 30,
1999) REPLY BRIEF OF THE PETITIONERS (NO. 98-1288)
598 Hill v. Colorado, 1999 WL 1037255, *1037255+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 12, 1999) MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE WITH BRIEF BY LEGAL DEFENSE FOR
UNBORN CHILDREN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY (NO. 98-1856)
599 Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 1996 WL 264936, *264936+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. May 14, 1996) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE WITH
BRIEF BY LEGAL DEFENSE FOR UNBORN CHILDREN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER
PARTY (NO. 95-1065)
600 Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 1992 WL 512238, *512238+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. May 28,
1992) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT (NO. 91-1188)
601 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Petitioners and
Cross-Respondents, v. Robert P. CASEY, et al., Respondents and Cross-Petitioners., 1992 WL
12006411, *12006411+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 06, 1992) Brief of Catholics United for Life,
Orthodox Christians for Life, National Organization of Episcopalians for Life, Presbyterians
Pro-Life, American Baptist Friends of Life, Baptists for Life, ... (NO. 91-744, 91-902)
602 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Petitioners and
Cross-Respondents, v. Robert P. CASEY, et al., Respondents and Cross-Petitioners., 1992 WL
12006417, *12006417+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 06, 1992) Brief of the Knights of Columbus as
Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents and Cross-Petitioners (NO. 91-744, 91-902)
603 Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Ford, 1992 WL 526249, *526249+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 09,
1992) BRIEF FOR PETITIONER (NO. 91-779)
604 Thaddeus Donald EDMONSON, Petitioner, v. LEESVILLE CONCRETE COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent., 1990 WL 10012962, *10012962+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 17, 1990) Brief for the
Respondent (NO. 89-7743)
605 Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 1990 WL 505495, *505495+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 17, 1990) BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT (NO. 89-7743)
606 William L. WEBSTER; State of Missouri, Appellants, v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES;
Planned Parenthood of Greater Kansas City; Howard I. Schwartz, M.D.; Robert L. Blake, M.D.; Carl
C. Pearman, M.D.; Carroll Metzger, R.N.C.; Mary L. Pemberton, B.S.W., Appellees., 1989 WL
1127609, *1127609+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 23, 1989) Brief Amicus Curiae of the Holy
Orthodox Church (NO. 88-605)
607 William L. WEBSTER, et al., Appellants, v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICE, et al.,
Appellees., 1989 WL 1127614, *1127614+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 23, 1989) Brief of the
Rutherford Institute and the Rutherford Institutes of Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Ohio, ... (NO. 88-605)
608 William L. WEBSTER, et al., Appellants, v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Appellees., 1989 WL 1127589, *1127589+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 22, 1989) Brief of the
Knights of Columbus as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants (NO. 88-605)
609 William L. WEBSTER, et al., Appellants, v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Appellees., 1989 WL 1127594, *1127594+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 22, 1989) Amicus Curiae
Brief of Right to Life Advocates, Inc. In Support of the Appellants (NO. 88-605)
610 Neil HARTIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. David ZBARAZ, M.D.,
Appellee., 1986 WL 727955, *727955+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 22, 1986) Motion for Leave to
File Amicus Curiae Brief with Brief by Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children (NO. 85-673)

611 Neil HARTIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. David ZBARAZ, M.D.,
Appellee., 1986 WL 728220, *728220+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 22, 1986) Motion for Leave to
File Amicus Curiae Brief with Brief by Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children (NO. 85-673)

612 Eugene F. DIAMOND and Jasper F. Williams Appellants, v. Allan G. CHARLES, et al. Appellees.,
1985 WL 669615, *669615+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jun 29, 1985) Motion for Leave to File Brief
Amicus Curiae, with Brief Amicus Curiae, by the Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children
(NO. 84-1379)
613 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Appellees., 1985 WL 669893, *669893+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. May 30, 1985) Brief of Mid-America Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae
Supporting Appellant (NO. 84-1044)
614 Richard THORNBURGH, v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS, Pennsylvania Section., 1984 WL 565883, *565883+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Oct Term 1984) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae, with Brief Amicus Curiae, by
the Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children (NO. 84-495)
615 THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, New England Merchants National Bank, the Gillette
Company, Digital Equipment Corporation, and Wyman-Gordon Company, Appellants, v. Francis X.
BELLOTTI, Attorney General, Appellee., 1977 WL 189649, *189649+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jun
02, 1977) Brief for Appellants (NO. 76-1172)
616 THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, et al., Appellants, v. Francis X. BELLOTTI,
Attorney General, et al., Appellees., 1977 WL 189655, *189655+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jun 02,
1977) Brief of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Inc. and Others, Amici Curiae (NO. 76-
1172)
617 The First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1977 WL 205191, *205191+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Jun 02, 1977) Brief of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Inc. and Others, Amici Curiae
(NO. 76-1172)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

618 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI, a Missouri Corporation, David Hall,
M.D., and Michael Freiman, M.D., Appellants, v. John C. DANFORTH, Attorney General of the
State of Missouri, and J. Brendan Ryan, Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, Missouri,
Appellees. (No. 74-1151) John C. Danforth, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Appellant, v.
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, a Missouri Corporation, David Hall, M.D., Michael
Freiman, M.D.,, 1976 WL 178721, *178721+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 05, 1976) Motion and
Brief, Amicus Curiae of Dr. Eugene Diamond and Americans United for Life, Inc., in Support
of Appellees in 74-1151 and Appellants in 74-1419 (NO. 74-1151, 74-1419) "
619 Bush v. Texas Highway Dept., 1974 WL 185568, *185568+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 12, 1974)
Brief Opposing Motion of Appellees to Affirm or Dismiss (NO. 73-1760)
620 Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., Inc., 1973 WL 172522, *172522 (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Jan 12, 1973) Reply Brief of the Petitioner (NO. 71-685)
621 Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts, 1972 WL 136264, *136264+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 17,
1972) Motion for Leave to File A Brief and Orally Argue as Amici Curiae & Brief of Amici
Curiae (NO. 71-685, 71-691)
622 Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. MacMullan, 1971 WL 133443, *133443+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term
1971) Brief on Behalf of Appellants. (NO. 71-422)
623 Southland Racing Corporation v. Rodgers, 1970 WL 123801, *123801+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jun
05, 1970) Jurisdictional Statement (NO. 223)
624 Walz v. Tax Com'n of the City of New York, 1969 WL 119916, *119916+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Oct 21, 1969) Brief of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and
State as Amicus Curiae1 (NO. 135)
625 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. George Musso, Madison County Treasurer and Ex-
Officio Collector of Taxes of Madison County, Illinois, Appellant, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON
AND QUINCY RR. CO., Chicago & Northwestern Rr. Co., Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Rr. Co., Chicago
and Eastern Illinois Rr. Co., Illinois Central Rr. Co., New York Central Rr. Co., New York, Chicago
& St. Louis Rr. Co., Wabash Rr. Co., Pennsylvania Rr. Co., Illinois Terminal Rr. Co., Alton &
Southern Rr., 1966 WL 115496, *115496+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 25, 1966) Appellant's Brief
(NO. 1046)
626 AMERICAN CANYON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District and a public
corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNA,
Appellee., 1966 WL 115502, *115502+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 11, 1966) Jurisdictional
Statement (NO. 1215)
627 Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Bowers, 1965 WL 115489, *115489+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 19, 1965)
Reply Brief of the Appellant (NO. 96)
628 RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Stanley J. BOWERS, Tax Commissioner
of Ohio, Appellee., 1965 WL 130128, *130128+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 13, 1965) Brief of
Appellee (NO. 96)
629 Roman v. Sincock, 1963 WL 105846, *105846+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 29, 1963) Brief for the
Appellees. (NO. 307)
630 Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Pompano Beach, Florida, 1963
WL 105748, *105748+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 01, 1963) Jurisdictional Statement (NO. 973)

631 Monroe v. Pape, 1960 WL 98617, *98617+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 25, 1960) Brief for
Petitioners (NO. 39)
632 James MONROE, et al., Petitioners, v. Frank PAPE, et al., Respondents., 1960 WL 63600, *63600+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 1960) Brief for Petitioners (NO. 39)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

633 First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, 1958 WL 91880, *91880
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 24, 1958) Respondents' Consolidated Brief (NO. 382, 385)
634 Radford v. Gary, 1957 WL 87540, *87540+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 11, 1957) Brief Opposing
Motion to Dismiss (NO. 652)
635 Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil and Gas Co., 1950 WL 78377, *78377+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Oct 23, 1950) Brief for the Appellant (NO. 153)
636 Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima v. Spanish S.S. ""Navemar"", 1937 WL 63814, *63814
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1937) Brief on Behalf of Petitioner. (NO. 242)
637 Banner Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Louisiana, 1936 WL 39981, *39981 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct
Term 1936) Statement of Jurisdiction. (NO. 149)
638 Washington v. Superior Court of the State of Washington for Spokane County, 1933 WL 31532,
*31532 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 29, 1933) Brief of Appellees (NO. 663)
639 Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Phelps, 1932 WL 33753, *33753 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 30, 1932)
Brief of Petitioner (NO. 346)
640 In re: SPOOKYWORLD, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. TOWN OF BERLIN, et al,
Defendants/Appellees., 2003 WL 25793871, *25793871+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. 2003) Brief of
Plaintiff/Appellant Spookyworld, Inc. (NO. 03-1315)
641 Christian WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., Raymond Kong, John
J. Farrell, John R. Vega, Andrew Holly, Steve Rutter, Peter Bibb, Gary Ford, Joe Warzenski, Gayle
Prescod, Anthony Shefferd, Mary C. Keller, Shabeena Gilani, Defendant-Appellees., 2007 WL
5322593, *5322593 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Mar 20, 2007) Reply Brief for Plaintiff-appellant
(NO. 06-1324, CV)
642 William HUSTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT -
Advance/Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable; Richard Parsons, CEO, Aol/Time Warner
(a general partner in Time Warner Entertainment - Advance/Newhouse Partnership); Robert J.
Miron, CEO, Advance Communications Corp (a general partner in Time Warner Entertainment -
Advance/Newhouse, Partnership); Jon Scott, President, Time Warner Cable, Vestal NY Division;
David Whalen, Vice President, Time Warner, 2004 WL 3767851, *3767851+ (Appellate Brief) (2nd
Cir. Oct 18, 2004) Appellant's Brief (NO. 04-2282-CV)
643 AT&T INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents., 2009 WL 3266688, *3266688+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Jan 30, 2009)
Reply Brief for Petitioner (NO. 08-4024)
644 AT&T INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents., 2008 WL 5517352, *5517352+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir.
Dec 19, 2008) Brief for Petitioner (NO. 08-4024)
645 FRIENDS AND RESIDENTS OF SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP, INC., a nonprofit corporation
incorporated under the nonprofit laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Michael A. Urban,
Winfred L. Walls, and Gloria Saberin, as Representatives of the Class Composed of all Residents of
Saint Thomas Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, Appellants, v. ST. THOMAS
DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al., Appellees., 2005 WL 6005219, *6005219+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd
Cir. Aug 23, 2005) Joint Reply Brief for Appellants (NO. 05-2378)
646 FRIENDS AND RESIDENTS OF SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP, INC., (FROST), a nonprofit
corporation incorporated under the nonprofit laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Michael
a. Urban; Winfred L. Walls; Gloria S. Saberin, as Representatives of the Class Composed of All
Residents of St. Thomas Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, Appellees, v. SAINT THOMAS
DEVELOPMENT, INC., a for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth
of, 2005 WL 6005220, *6005220+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Aug 08, 2005) Brief for Appellees

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pedro a. Cortes and Gerald J. Pappert (NO. 05-2378)
647 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CONTENTS OF ACCOUNTS NOS. 3034504504 and 144-
07143 at Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. Friko Corporation, Claimant in D.C.,
Appellant., 1996 WL 33581471, *33581471+ (Appellate Brief) (3rd Cir. Feb 01, 1996) Brief and
District Court Opinion Below (NO. 95-5766)
648 In the Matter of: OCA, INC., formerly d/b/a Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc.; Orthalliance New
Image, Inc.; Orthodontic Centers of Texas, Inc.; and Orthalliance, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Debtors. Doug CROSBY, DDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ORTHALLIANCE NEW IMAGE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellant. Donald B DOAN, DDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ORTHODONTIC CENTERS
OF TEXAS, INC, Defendant-Appellant. Glenwood JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF TEXAS,, 2007 WL 6236617, *6236617+ (Appellate Brief) (5th
Cir. Sep 20, 2007) Dr. Robert Packard and Packard Orthodontics, P.A.'s Amicus Curiae Brief
in Support of Appellees and Affirmance of the District Court's Judgment (NO. 07-30430)
649 Charles E. BAKER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CANADIAN NATIONAL ILLINOIS CENTRAL
RAILROAD, Defendant/Appellee., 2006 WL 6167060, *6167060+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Oct
25, 2006) Plaintiff/Appellant Charles E. Baker's Opening Brief (NO. 06-60138)
650 KOSSMAN CONTRACTING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-
Appellee., 2005 WL 3186214, *3186214+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Sep 23, 2004) Reply Brief for
Appellant, Kossman Contracting Co., Inc. (NO. 04-20402)
651 OTTO CANDIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOUSTON SEA-PACKING COMPANY INC.,
Defendant-Appellant., 1999 WL 33728146, *33728146+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Sep 21, 1999)
Brief for Appellant, Donald E. Jones (NO. 99-30517)
652 SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., Murphy Farms, LLC, and Prestage-Stoecker Farms, Inc., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. Thomas J. MILLER, Attorney General of Iowa, Defendant-Appellant., 2003 WL
23063100, *23063100+ (Appellate Brief) (8th Cir. Apr 14, 2003) Brief of Amicus Curiae
Christopher Bedford and Lori Sokolowski Supporting Defendant-Appellant and Reversal of
the District Court (NO. 03-1411) "
653 FRANKE, (Plaintiff, Pro se), v. ARUP LABORATORIES, INC, et al., (Defendant(s))., 2010 WL
1534961, *1534961+ (Appellate Brief) (10th Cir. Apr 05, 2010) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO.
10-4045)
654 THE UTILITIES BOARD OF THE CITY OF DAPHNE, Appellant, v. CITY OF SPANISH FORT,
et al., Appellees., 2005 WL 3142139, *3142139+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Feb 22, 2005) Reply
Brief of Appellant (NO. 04-15411-F)
655 Zion CONGREGATION, et al, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BROWARD COUNTY, Defendant/Appellee.,
1993 WL 13141039, *13141039+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Jul 09, 1993) Initial Brief (NO. 93-
4237)
656 Aubrey HENDRIX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., and MANVILLE
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants. Wainwright HENDRIX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., and MANVILLE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants.
Tyres David WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., and MANVILLE
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants. William Harold DELOACH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., and, 1983 WL 486775, *486775+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir.
Aug 19, 1983) Brief of Appellants (NO. 82-8548)
657 TOTES-ISOTONER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-
Appellee., 2009 WL 1699615, *1699615+ (Appellate Brief) (Fed.Cir. May 27, 2009) Brief for
Defendant-Appellee, the United States (NO. 2009-1113)
658 Johnny DACCARETT-GHIA, Alieged Alter Ego or Nominee of Friko Corporation, Appellant, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAI REVENUE, Appellee., 1995 WL 17204809, *17204809+

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Apr 14, 1995) Appellant's Brief on Behalf of Johnny Daccarett,
Alleged Alter Ego of Friko Corporation (NO. 95-1029)
659 FRIKO CORPORATION, And Johnny Daccarett-ghia, Alleged Alter Ego Or Noeinee of Friko
Corporation, Appellants., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENOE, Appellee., 1994 WL
16777594, *16777594+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Feb 28, 1994) Appellant's Brief On Behalf of
Friko Corporation and Johnny Daccarett, Alleged Alter Ego of Friro Corporation (NO. 93-
1269)
660 THRESHOLD ENTERPRISES, LTD., Defendant/Appellant, v. AS YOU SOW, INC.,
Plaintiff/Respondent., 2004 WL 1514032, *1514032 (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Jun 08,
2004) Appellant's Reply Brief (NO. A104484)
661 Ellen M. DIXON, Joesph Dock, and David A. Dixon, Jr., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF
LIVERMORE, Defendant and Appellant., 2004 WL 1061379, *1061379+ (Appellate Brief)
(Cal.App. 1 Dist. Mar 17, 2004) Respondents' Brief (NO. A100310)
662 ADNAN YOUSEF AND AMERICAN LIBERTY BAIL BONDS, INC., Petitioner/Respondent, v.
JOHN GARAMENDI INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, Department of Insurance of the State of
California, Respondent/Appellant., 2005 WL 3454490, *3454490+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2
Dist. Nov 01, 2005) Reply Brief (NO. B183344)
663 Kaswa CORPORATION, Appellant, v. POSTAL INSTANT PRESS, INC. a Delaware corporation,
Respondent., 2007 WL 2321543, *2321543+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Jun 25, 2007)
Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. G038270)
664 AMERICAN SECURITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Appeallant, v. CERES
PIPE AND METAL, INC., Profit Plan, Plaintiff and Respondent., 2006 WL 5164080, *5164080
(Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 5 Dist. May 15, 2006) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. F048893)
665 N. L. NEILSON, et al., Plaintiffs and appellants, v. CALIFORNIA CITY, etc., Defendant and
respondent., 2004 WL 5482419, *5482419+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004) Answer and
Response by Amicus Curiae Aaron L. Katz to Amicus Curiae brief by the League of California
Cities Supporting Appellant's Position (NO. F046860)
666 QWEST SERVICES CORPORATION and Qwest Corporation, Petitioners-Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs, Andrew Blood, Carrie Blood, Respondents-Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
OF COLORADO, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, Respondent-Third Party Defendant., 2010 WL 3971845,
*3971845+ (Appellate Brief) (Colo. May 19, 2010) Amicus Curiae Brief of Colorado Defense
Lawyers Association (NO. 2009SC534)
667 Sally SARKIS, Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent., 2002 WL
32131674, *32131674+ (Appellate Brief) (Fla. 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Florida Defense
Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent (NO. 02-428)
668 Sally SARKIS, Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent., 2002 WL
32131796, *32131796+ (Appellate Brief) (Fla. 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae, Florida Defense
Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent (NO. 02-428)
669 PIRELLI ARMSTRONG TIRE CORPORATION, etc., Petitioner, v. Meta E. JENSEN, etc., et al.,
Respondent., 2000 WL 33998733, *33998733 (Appellate Brief) (Fla. Jun 2000) Petitioner's Initial
Brief on the Merits (NO. SC00-833)
670 Daniel Hubert ROSS et al., Appellants, v. AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION et al.,
Appellees., 2010 WL 3331610, *3331610 (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. Jul 01, 2010) Brief for
Appellants (NO. 02722)
671 E. Perry IRON & Metal Co., Inc., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF PORTLAND,
Defendant/Appellee., 2007 WL 5267081, *5267081+ (Appellate Brief) (Me. May 21, 2007) Brief of
Plaintiff/Appellant E. Perry Iron & Metal Co., Inc. (NO. CUM07-176)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 672 THE OFFICE PLANNING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. BARAGA-HOUGHTON-
KEWEENAW CHILD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC., Defendant/Appellant., 2002 WL
32710081, *32710081+ (Appellate Brief) (Mich. Sep 21, 2002) Plaintiff/Appellee's Brief on
Appeal (NO. 125448)
673 MISSISSIPPI WASTE OF HANCOCK COUNTY,INC, a Mississippi Corporation, Appellant, v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF HANCOCK COUNTY, Mississippi, Appellee., 2000 WL
34429882, *34429882+ (Appellate Brief) (Miss. Jun 07, 2000) Brief of Appellant (NO. 00-CA-
00187)
674 ISLAND HOLDING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Denis J. O'BRIEN a/k/a Denis O'Brien, Defendant-
Respondent, Nicholas Valner and Kenneth Roberts, as co-executors of the Estate of George Harrison,
Defendants-Appellants, Union Illinois (1995) Investment Limited Partnership, Defendant-
Respondent, Alabert J. O'Brien a/k/a Albert J. O'Brien, Defendant-Respondent, Douglas Alan
O'Brien, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Denis J. O'Brien Family Irrevocable Trust,, 2004 WL
1540770, *1540770+ (Appellate Brief) (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. Mar 01, 2004) Brief for Defendants-
Appellants
675 Michelle ZAPPALA, v. BRANDOLINI PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.; Paoli Shopping
Center Limited Partnership; Paoli Shopping Center Limited Partnership II; Paoli Shopping Center
Limited Partnership Phase II; United Builders & Constructors, Ltd.; Kortan General Maintenance,
Inc.; the James Lewis Group t/a Brandolini Companies; James Lewis Corporation; Progress Bank;
the Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack t/a Pep Boys; Brubacher Excavating, Inc.; Green Design, Inc.;
Carroll Contractors, Inc.;, 2005 WL 3838869, *3838869+ (Appellate Brief) (Pa. May 19, 2005)
Brief for Appellee (NO. 12EAP2005)
676 SUSQUEHANNA AREA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION and Capital City Cab Service, Inc., respondents., 2006 WL
4546448, *4546448+ (Appellate Brief) (Pa.Cmwlth. Apr 13, 2006) Brief Respondent - Capital
City Cab Service (NO. 2516CD2005)
677 Diane CORRIVEAU, et al., Appellants, v. MARYSVILLE BOROUGH COUNCIL, Appellees.,
1998 WL 34330100, *34330100 (Appellate Brief) (Pa.Cmwlth. Dec 23, 1998) Reply Brief (NO.
2259CD1998)
678 MADEJA, v. COMMONWEALTH, County of Lehigh., 2009 WL 4321597, *4321597+ (Appellate
Brief) (Pa.Super. Jun 05, 2009) Brief for Appellant (NO. 579EDA2009)
679 NEAH BAY CHANBER OF COMMERCE, Roland D. Rays, Peter F. Hanson, and Alvin D. Seda
Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, Respondent., 1991 WL
11240622, *11240622+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Jun 21, 1991) Brief of Respondent (NO. 57870-2)

Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Trial Pleadings
680 GORDON WARREN EPPERLY, Plaintiff, v. Congress of the United States, (United States),
Defendant., 2006 WL 1502737, *1502737 (Trial Pleading) (D.Alaska Apr 03, 2006) Complaint
(NO. J06-0008CV(JWS))
681 LEITNER, v. UNITED STATES., 2009 WL 6361935, *6361935 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Fla. Dec 14,
2009) Complaint (NO. 309CV00545)
682 HONOUR TECHNICAL GROUP, INC. and Brian Honour, Petitioner(s), v. United States,

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Respondent., 2007 WL 4885123, *4885123+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.N.C. Nov 26, 2007) (NO.
07CV00472)
683 Gene Kimmerly SMITH (Trust); Plaintiff, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; Janie
98037, Revenue Agent, in her official and personal capacities; Renee Sibley, Revenue Agent in her
official and personal capacities; Matthew Claflin, Revenue Agent in his official and personal
capacities; Jolene FE3, Revenue Agent in her official and personal capacities; John and/or Jane Doe,
Revenue Agents, etc. in their official and personal capacities, Defendants., 2004 WL 3335631,
*3335631 (Trial Pleading) (D.Or. Jul 20, 2004) Amended Complaint for Damages and
Deprivation of Civil Rights (NO. 04-6213-HO)
684 Gene Kimmerly SMITH (Trust), Plaintiff, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; Janie
98037, Revenue Agent, in her official and personal capacities; Renee Sibley, Revenue Agent in her
official and personal capacities; John and/or Jane Doe, Revenue Agents, etc. in their official and
personal capacities, Defendants., 2004 WL 3335630, *3335630 (Trial Pleading) (D.Or. Jul 01, 2004)
Complaint for Damages, Deprivation of Civil Rights, Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights,
Failure to Prevent Interference with Civil Rights (NO. 04-6213-HO)
685 VERMONT RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC.; Vermont Right to Life Committee - Fund for
Independent Political Expenditures; Felix Callan; and James Dunlap, Plaintiffs, v. William H.
SORRELL, in his official capacity as Vermont Attorney General; John T. Quinn, Erica Marthage,
Robert Butterfield, T.J. Donovan, Vincent Illuzzi, James Hughes, David Miller, Joel Page, William
Porter, Keith Flynn, James Mongeon, Thomas Kelly, Tracy Shriver, and Robert Sand, in their, 2009
WL 4999339, *4999339 (Trial Pleading) (D.Vt. Aug 14, 2009) Verified Complaint (NO. 209-CV-
188)
686 CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INC., Plaintiff, v. Betty IRELAND, West Virginia
Secretary of State, and Timothy D. Boggess, Prosecuting Attorney for Mercer County, as a
representative of the class of prosecuting attorneys in the state of West Virginia, Defendants, West
Virginia Education Association, West Virginia American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations, Robert M. Bastress, Jr., Margaret L. Workman, and Menis E. Ketchum,
Intervening, 2008 WL 4762754, *4762754 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.W.Va. Oct 24, 2008) First
Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (NO. 0108-CV-00190, 108-
CV-01133)

Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits

687 Hugo DELGADO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEW ALBERTSON'S, INC., a Delaware corporation; Supervalu Inc., a
Delaware corporation; American Stores Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants., 2009 WL 5440881, *5440881+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (C.D.Cal.
Nov 09, 2009) Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion
for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff's Claims
(NO. 808CV00806)
688 Melissa S. CURRIE-WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BLOCKBUSTER, INC.; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants., 2009 WL 2749932,
*2749932+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal. Jun 18, 2009) Defendant's Notice
of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support Thereof (NO. 309CV02593)
689 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION, Defendant., 2009 WL 301794, *301794+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.D.C. Jan 26, 2009) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Judgment (NO. 08-1953, BMK, RJL, RMC)
690 RESCUE TRAINING ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and
Agricultural and Mechanical College, Defendant., 2006 WL 4804233, *4804233 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. May 30, 2006) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Transfer (NO. 05-81146CIV-
HURLEY/H)
691 RESCUE TRAINING ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND
AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Defendant., 2006 WL 1864861, *1864861
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Fla. May 26, 2006) Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Transfer (NO. 05-81146)

692 Mary Ann Biddle LOVELL On Behalf of Edmond White, Jr. v. CLAIBORNE MANOR NURSING
HOME BILL COPELAND, Administrator., 2000 WL 34610604, *34610604 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.La. Apr 20, 2000) Plaintiff's Objection and Reply Brief United
States Constitution - Bill of Rights Amendment IV; Fourteenth Amendment; the Privacy Act of
1974 5U.S.C.552A(I)(1,2,3) (NO. CV00-0275S)
693 William M. PRICE, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Acting through and by its agent Tim
McGraw, Defendant., 2004 WL 1965444, *1965444 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(W.D.Mich. Jan 13, 2004) Memorandum, Affidavit and Motion to Vacate the November 24,
2003, Judgment for Lack of Court's Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction (NO. 503-CV-
0161)
694 AMERICAN HEAVY MOVING & RIGGING CO., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. ROBB
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC a Nevada limited liability company; Laron, Inc., an Arizona Corporation,
Laron, Inc., Corporation, James Mcghie, An Individual, and Glenn Thoroughman, An Individual,
Defendants., 2008 WL 4404850, *4404850 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Nev. Jun
05, 2008) Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on all
Claims Alleged Against the Laron Defendants (NO. 204CV0033)
695 Dr. Judy WOOD, on behalf of The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. APPLIED RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES, INC., et al, Defendants., 2008 WL 872843, *872843 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (S.D.N.Y. Feb 29, 2008) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss (NO. 07CIV3314, GBD)
696 ALL CHILDREN MATTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. Jennifer BRUNNER, Secretary of State of the State
of Ohio, in her official capacity; Martin Parks, William Ogg, Charles Calvert, John Mroczkowski,
Harvey Shapiro, Bryan Felmet, and Yvette McGee Brown, Members of the Ohio Elections
Commission, in their official capacity, Defendants., 2009 WL 3663124, *3663124 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ohio Aug 30, 2009) Plaintiff ACM's Summary Judgment Brief
(NO. 208-CV-1036)
697 Richard BARTON, Plaintiff, v. Ronald W. HOWELL, Statesource, LLC, Skiatook Economic
Development Authority, the Town of Skiatook, Oklahoma, BLU Hulsey, Senator James Inhofe, and
Colonel Robert L. Suthard, Jr., Defendants., 2004 WL 3340983, *3340983 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Okla. Jan 23, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Standing and of Real Party in Interest (NO. 03-CV-853-P(C))
698 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALN TOWNSHIP,
et al., Defendants., 2009 WL 3291870, *3291870 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(E.D.Pa. Jan 16, 2009) Brief in Support of All Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and to Deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ... (NO. 08-5398)
699 FRIENDS AND RESIDENTS OF SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP, INC. (FROST), a nonprofit
corporation incorporated under the nonprofit laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Michael

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 A. Urban, Winfred L. Walls, and Gloria S. Saberin, as Representatives of the Class Composed of All
Residents of Saint Thomas Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, v. ST. THOMAS
DEVELOPMENT, INC., et. al., 2004 WL 2277455, *2277455 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (M.D.Pa. Aug 02, 2004) Plaintiffs' Reply to the Corporate Defendants' Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Class Action (NO. 104-CV-0627)
700 FRIENDS AND RESIDENTS OF SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP, INC. (FROST), a nonprofit
corporation incorporated under the nonprofit laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Michael
A. Urban, Winfred L. Walls, and Gloria S. Saberin, as Representatives of the Class Composed of All
Residents of Saint Thomas Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, v. ST. THOMAS
DEVELOPMENT, INC., et. al., 2004 WL 2277415, *2277415+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (M.D.Pa. Jun 01, 2004) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to the Commonwealth
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (NO. 104-CV-0627)
701 FRIENDS AND RESIDENTS OF SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP, INC., a nonprofit corporation
incorporated under the nonprofit laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SAINT THOMAS DEVELOPMENT, INC., a for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 2277393, *2277393 (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Pa. May 13, 2004) Brief in Support of the Motion of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pedro A. Cortes and Gerald J. Pappert to Dismiss (NO.
104-CV-0627)
702 John GAGLIARDI, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Calvin Lightfoot, former Warden of Allegheny County Jail, Fred
Rosemeyer, present Warden of Allegheny County Jail, James C. Roddey, former County Chief
Executive, Dan Onorato, present County Chief Executive and John Doe, a County Correctional
Officer, with name unknown, Jane Doe, a County Correctional Officer, with name unknown, Jack
Doe, a, 2005 WL 4694069, *4694069 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Pa. Sep 22,
2005) Plaintiff's Reply to Jack Doe/Jill Doe Defendants ""Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Joinder of Additional Defendant'' (NO. 04-0241)
703 EVANSTON INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL WRAP(R) LLC (GW), Defendant., 2009
WL 1257641, *1257641+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Tex. Mar 13, 2009)
Global Wrap's Sworn, Verified Reply to Motions to Strike and Order Default Judgment and
Motion to Reconsider March 10, 2009 Order (NO. 309-CV-00261-M)
704 EDGEWOOD CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MUSKEGO, Brian Turk, Sean
McMullen, Jeff Muenkel, and one or more John Does, in their individual capacities, Defendants.,
2008 WL 7319874, *7319874 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Wis. May 30, 2008)
Plaintiff's Brief Supporting a Corporation's Ability to Make A Discrimination Claim Based on
Sex (NO. 07-C-1093) "
705 CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INC., et al., v. Betty IRELAND, et al., 2009 WL
420698, *420698 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.W.Va. Feb 04, 2009) Plaintiffs
WVFL and Lawhorn's Summary Judgment Brief (NO. 0108-CV-00190, 108-CV-01133)
706 WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INC., and Zane Lawhorn, Plaintiffs, v. Betty IRELAND, in her
official capacity as Secretary of State for West Virginia and as a member of the West Virginia
Election Commission, and Timothy D. Boggess, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for
Mercer County, West Virginia, as representative of the class of prosecuting attorneys in West
Virginia, Defendants., 2008 WL 7327733, *7327733 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(S.D.W.Va. Sep 30, 2008) Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Brief (NO. 108-1133)
707 PIEDMONT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, LLC, a foreign limited liability Company;
Woodside Hospital, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and Jane Doe, a West Virginia
resident, Individually and as parent and next friend of John Doe, a minor West Virginia resident,
Plaintiffs, v. Dr. David STEWART, West Virginia Superintendent of Schools; West Virginia

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

 Department of Education; Paul L. Nusbaum, Secretary, West Virginia Department of Health and
Human, 2005 WL 2867685, *2867685 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.W.Va. Sep
21, 2005) Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment Filed on Behalf of Dr.
David Stewart and the West Virginia Department of Education (NO. 204-0946)
... Rodoleho MUNCZ, a/k/a., Rucy P. Munoz, Plaintiff, v. CENERAL PRESIDENTS, Frank Panlcy,
(Past); Vincent L. Ciblin, (Present); General Executive Rcards (Past and Present) of the International
Union Operating Engineers; The International Union of Operating Engineers, Defendants. (Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Wyo. Jan 17, 2006) Respowci to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. (NO. 05CV228F) (Text not available on WESTLAW)
709 Anthony CADLO and Maxlyn Cadlo, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC), et al.,
Defendants., 2005 WL 3949901, *3949901 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(Cal.Superior Jan 06, 2005) Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Punitive
Damages and to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages (NO. 412325)
710 Roy Duane LEE, Plaintiff, v. A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendant., 2001 WL
35712355, *35712355 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Cal.Superior Feb 07, 2001)
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Punitive Damages and to Strike Prayer
for Punitive Damages on Behalf of United States Gypsum Company (NO. 314384)
711 Robert GRAHN and Donna Grahn, Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., 1994
WL 16437740, *16437740 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Cal.Superior Jul 11, 1994)
Motion in Limine to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages (NO. 922682)
712 Robert GRAHN and Donna Grahn, Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants., 1994
WL 16437703, *16437703 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Cal.Superior Jun 17, 1994)
Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Punitive Damages and to Strike Prayer for Punitive
Damages (NO. 922682)
713 Daniel Hubert ROSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, et al,
Defendants., 2009 WL 6825811, *6825811 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Md.Cir.Ct.
2009) Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of
Their Motion for Sanctions, Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Demand a Jury Trial
(NO. CAL09-20465)
714 E. PERRY IRON & METAL CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, Defendant., 2005 WL
6312936, *6312936 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Me.Super. Oct 14, 2005)
Plaintiff's Phase II Brief (NO. CV-04-720)
715 John DOE, Plaintiff, v. Hon. Robert HOLDEN, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 6143737, *6143737
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Mo.Cir. Jul 13, 2005) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants'
Suggestions in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04CC-004194)

Jury Instructions
716 Marcus L. HAYES, Plaintiff, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant., 2006 WL 4039534,
*4039534 (Jury Instruction) (Ohio Com.Pl. Sep 21, 2006) Notice of filing Proposed Jury
Instructions of Defendant, CSX Transportation, Inc. (NO. A0305071)

Positive & Neutral Cases (Canada)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Referred to in
717 R. v. Maurice, 1985 CarswellOnt 1556 (Ont. Prov. Ct. Sep 18, 1985)

Secondary Sources (Canada)

718 Social Democracy and the Limits of Rights Constitutionalism, 17 Canadian Journal of Law and
Jurisprudence 31+ (2004)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.