Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:35:41.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Brief for Business

Review products

Neely Richard. Judicial Jeopardy: When Business Collides with the Courts. (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1986). xvi + 182 pp. Notes. $19.95.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Joel Rogers
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , 1988 , pp. 753 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by The Law and Society Association

References

ADAMS, John Quincy (1839) The Jubilee of the Constitution. New York.Google Scholar
BICKEL, Alexander (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
BLECHMAN, Barry M., and Stephen S., KAPLAN (1978) Force Without War: U.S. Armed Forces as a Political Instrument. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
BURNHAM, Walter Dean (1974) “The United States: The Politics of Heterogeneity,” in Rose, R. (ed.), Electoral Behavior: A Comparative Handbook. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
CALABRESI, Guido (1982) A Common Law for the Age of Statutes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
CARDOZO, Benjamin N. (1921) The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
COFFIN, Frank M. (1980) The Ways of a Judge: Reflections from the Federal Appellate Bench. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
FRIENDLY, Henry J. (1967) Benchmarks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
HARTZ, Louis (1955) The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
HOWARD, J. Woodford Jr. (1981) Courts of Appeals in the Federal Judicial System: A Study of the Second, Fifth, and District of Columbia Circuits. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACEY, Jonathan R. (1986) “Prompting Public-Regarding Legislation Through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model,” 86 Columbia Law Review 223.Google Scholar
MASHAW, Jerry L. (1983) Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
NELSON, Robert L. (1985) “Ideology, Practice, and Professional Autonomy: Social Values and Client Relationships in the Large Law Firm,” 37 Stanford Law Review 503.Google Scholar
NETTL, J. P. (1968) “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” 20 World Politics 559.Google Scholar
POSNER, Richard A. (1985) The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
RUESCHEMEYER, Dietrich (1973) Lawyers and Their Society: A Comparative Study of the Legal Profession in Germany and in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SHAPIRO, Martin (1981) Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SKOWRONEK, Stephen (1982) Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STEWART, Richard B. (1975) “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,” 88 Harvard Law Review 1667.Google Scholar
STEWART, RICHARD B., and Cass R., SUNSTEIN (1982) “Public Programs and Private Rights,” 95 Harvard Law Review 1193.Google Scholar
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. (1984) “Deregulation and the Hard Look Doctrine,” 1983 Supreme Court Review 177.Google Scholar
UNGER, Roberto Mangabeira (1983) “The Critical Legal Studies Movement,” 96 Harvard Law Review 561.Google Scholar