Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Chapter 39 - The Justices and the Theories

  • from Section B: Civil Liberties after 1937
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    The Hughes Court
    Published online:
    13 January 2022
    Print publication:
    03 February 2022, pp 1043-1059

  • Summary

    Before 1937 political scientists had begun to decribe the US political system as one of pluraism and interest groups. After 1937 some justices moved haltingly to write the theory of interest group plualism into constitutional theory in ways that would allow them to uphold economic regulation while taking a more active role in policing legislation dealing with civil liberties. To do so they had to develop an account of “fundamental rights” that were enforceable aagainst the states through the Due Process Clause.

  • Is a Directive on Corporate Mobility Needed?

  • Eddy Wymeersch
  • Journal:
    European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) / Volume 8 / Issue 1 / March 2007
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 April 2007, pp. 161-169
    Print publication:
    March 2007

  • After a short historical introduction, this paper argues that corporate mobility remains a real political issue. To clarify matters, it proposes to distinguish between a formal seat transfer, being the choice of a different legal regime, and a de facto seat transfer that would not affect the applicable company law, the host State not being entitled to apply its company law rules. A future directive should be based on this distinction, prescribing the formalities for the former and stating clearly the consequences of the latter, thereby also defining the limits within which the “general good” can be invoked.