Anti-discrimination Law and Limits of the Power of Dismissal: A Comparative Analysis of the Legislation and Case Law in the United States and Italy

Author(s):  
Fabio Pantano
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly Hewett

The statutory framework surrounding oil and gas law and the related title issues in Texas and New Mexico, while similar in many instances, do have some notable differences. New Mexico case law is very limited, which could be due to a variety of reasons, including a smaller state population and the fact that New Mexico and the United States own much of New Mexico’s oil and gas productive acreage. Therefore, practitioners often look to other jurisdictions, including Texas, for guidance. Texas’s secondary authority is also better developed with its own adopted title standards.1 New Mexico does not have such guidance. This Article will focus on the distinctions between the oil and gas laws and the passage of title in Texas and New Mexico from a title examiner’s perspective. Both states do have a regulatory body—the Texas the Railroad Commission (“TXRRC”) and the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division (“NMOCD”)2—that oversees oil, gas, and other mineral activities by regulating activities such as well spacing, allowables, and pooling.


1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Rodger

This article is the revised text of the first W A Wilson Memorial Lecture, given in the Playfair Library, Old College, in the University of Edinburgh, on 17 May 1995. It considers various visions of Scots law as a whole, arguing that it is now a system based as much upon case law and precedent as upon principle, and that its departure from the Civilian tradition in the nineteenth century was part of a general European trend. An additional factor shaping the attitudes of Scots lawyers from the later nineteenth century on was a tendency to see themselves as part of a larger Englishspeaking family of lawyers within the British Empire and the United States of America.


Author(s):  
V. Iordanova ◽  
A. Ananev

The authors of this scientific article conducted a comparative analysis of the trade policy of US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The article states that the tightening of trade policy by the current President is counterproductive and has a serious impact not only on the economic development of the United States, but also on the entire world economy as a whole.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Matias López ◽  
Juan Pablo Luna

ABSTRACT By replying to Kurt Weyland’s (2020) comparative study of populism, we revisit optimistic perspectives on the health of American democracy in light of existing evidence. Relying on a set-theoretical approach, Weyland concludes that populists succeed in subverting democracy only when institutional weakness and conjunctural misfortune are observed jointly in a polity, thereby conferring on the United States immunity to democratic reversal. We challenge this conclusion on two grounds. First, we argue that the focus on institutional dynamics neglects the impact of the structural conditions in which institutions are embedded, such as inequality, racial cleavages, and changing political attitudes among the public. Second, we claim that endogeneity, coding errors, and the (mis)use of Boolean algebra raise questions about the accuracy of the analysis and its conclusions. Although we are skeptical of crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis as an adequate modeling choice, we replicate the original analysis and find that the paths toward democratic backsliding and continuity are both potentially compatible with the United States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document