{"title":"Physician assistant as abortion provider: lessons from Vermont, New York, and Montana.","authors":"J T Schirmer","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1997-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24193898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1993-11-01DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039
M. Kornhauser
This Article explores the premise that married couples share or pool their income. It surveys the changing concept and reality of 'family' and examines several empirical studies, including the author’s, that address the issue of the allocation of financial resources between members of a couple living together. This focus on 'pooling' sheds new light on the more commonly asked questions about the joint return: Does it promote family values? Should it (and the tax system generally) promote family values? Is it justified by other concerns such as economic ones? Part I of this Article briefly describes the social and legal realities of family living arrangements that contrast with the one-earner, heterosexual married couple model upon which the joint return is based. Part II probes the concept of pooling from a practical standpoint by examining several empirical studies that address the allocation of financial resources by a couple. Part III summarizes the theory and history of the taxable unit and the taxable unit as it exists today. Part IV concludes that the income tax system ought to use the individual rather than the married couple as the taxable unit. Separate taxation is not the perfect solution to the taxable unit issue, but no perfect solution exists. It is, however, the better solution because taxation based on the individual comports better with reality, social policies promoting families, tax theory, and economic considerations than the joint return.
{"title":"Love, Money, and the IRS: Family, Income Sharing, and the Joint Income Tax Return","authors":"M. Kornhauser","doi":"10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039","url":null,"abstract":"This Article explores the premise that married couples share or pool their income. It surveys the changing concept and reality of 'family' and examines several empirical studies, including the author’s, that address the issue of the allocation of financial resources between members of a couple living together. This focus on 'pooling' sheds new light on the more commonly asked questions about the joint return: Does it promote family values? Should it (and the tax system generally) promote family values? Is it justified by other concerns such as economic ones? Part I of this Article briefly describes the social and legal realities of family living arrangements that contrast with the one-earner, heterosexual married couple model upon which the joint return is based. Part II probes the concept of pooling from a practical standpoint by examining several empirical studies that address the allocation of financial resources by a couple. Part III summarizes the theory and history of the taxable unit and the taxable unit as it exists today. Part IV concludes that the income tax system ought to use the individual rather than the married couple as the taxable unit. Separate taxation is not the perfect solution to the taxable unit issue, but no perfect solution exists. It is, however, the better solution because taxation based on the individual comports better with reality, social policies promoting families, tax theory, and economic considerations than the joint return.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1993-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cbo9780511609800.039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57078755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1993-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315181981-12
L. Alexander
{"title":"Trouble on Track Two: Incidental Regulations of Speech and Free Speech Theory","authors":"L. Alexander","doi":"10.4324/9781315181981-12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181981-12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70635739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Discovery of the Nontestifying Expert Witness' Identity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: You Can't Tell the Players without a Program","authors":"D. Emerick","doi":"10.1109/c-m.1981.220423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1109/c-m.1981.220423","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/c-m.1981.220423","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"62211381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chicago School antitrust policy rests upon the premise that the sole purpose of antitrust is to promote economic efficiency. This article shows that this foundation is flawed. The fundamental purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers. To protect purchasers from paying supracompetitive prices when they buy goods or services. This is the "wealth transfer," "theft", "consumer welfare" or "purchaser protection" explanation for antitrust. The article shows that the efficiency view originated in a detailed analysis of the legislative history of the Sherman Act undertaken by Robert Bork. Bork purported to show that Congress only cared about enhancing economic efficiency.To analyze Bork's arguments, this article first explains the underlying economic concepts, including Bork's misleading definition of the term, "consumer surplus" when he should have used the term "total surplus". This article then analyzes the legislative histories of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Celler-Kefauver Act, and FTC Act. This analysis demonstrates that Congress's overriding concern when it enacted each law was with protecting consumers from paying supracompetitive prices. Congress did this because it believed that illegally acquired supracompetitive pricing constituted an "unfair" transfer of purchasers' property to firms with market power. Economic efficiency was only a secondary concern.The only exception is the law's goal of protecting small sellers from anticompetitive behavior by buyers with illegally gained monopsony power. This limited concern, however, is just the mirror image of Congress' desire to protect purchasers from exploitation. In both buy-side and sell-side cases, the overarching goal is the same - preventing firms that have unfairly acquired power from imposing noncompetitive prices or non-price terms on those they do business with. In both cases these firms "unfairly" acquire wealth. When conduct presents a conflict between the welfare of consumers and total welfare (e.g., a merger that raises prices but reduces costs), courts should choose purchaser protection over economic efficiency. This conclusion supports a more aggressive approach to many areas of antitrust.
{"title":"Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged","authors":"R. Lande","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2065413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2065413","url":null,"abstract":"Chicago School antitrust policy rests upon the premise that the sole purpose of antitrust is to promote economic efficiency. This article shows that this foundation is flawed. The fundamental purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers. To protect purchasers from paying supracompetitive prices when they buy goods or services. This is the \"wealth transfer,\" \"theft\", \"consumer welfare\" or \"purchaser protection\" explanation for antitrust. The article shows that the efficiency view originated in a detailed analysis of the legislative history of the Sherman Act undertaken by Robert Bork. Bork purported to show that Congress only cared about enhancing economic efficiency.To analyze Bork's arguments, this article first explains the underlying economic concepts, including Bork's misleading definition of the term, \"consumer surplus\" when he should have used the term \"total surplus\". This article then analyzes the legislative histories of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Celler-Kefauver Act, and FTC Act. This analysis demonstrates that Congress's overriding concern when it enacted each law was with protecting consumers from paying supracompetitive prices. Congress did this because it believed that illegally acquired supracompetitive pricing constituted an \"unfair\" transfer of purchasers' property to firms with market power. Economic efficiency was only a secondary concern.The only exception is the law's goal of protecting small sellers from anticompetitive behavior by buyers with illegally gained monopsony power. This limited concern, however, is just the mirror image of Congress' desire to protect purchasers from exploitation. In both buy-side and sell-side cases, the overarching goal is the same - preventing firms that have unfairly acquired power from imposing noncompetitive prices or non-price terms on those they do business with. In both cases these firms \"unfairly\" acquire wealth. When conduct presents a conflict between the welfare of consumers and total welfare (e.g., a merger that raises prices but reduces costs), courts should choose purchaser protection over economic efficiency. This conclusion supports a more aggressive approach to many areas of antitrust.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1982-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2065413","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67896563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1981-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9781315699868-28
Laury M. Frieber
injury is that its members are particularly concerned about the injury suffered by all citizens when the government fails to act within the confines of the establishment clause. Like the court in Americans United, the Supreme Court in Flast was moved to find a way to grant standing to plaintiffs interested only in preserving the principle of the establishment clause. The Court in Flast created the nexus test in order to carve out an establishment clause exception to the rule against allowing a plaintiff to pursue a generalized grievance. The court in Americans United viewed the decision in Flast as limited by the plaintiffs' allegation in the pleadings of their status as taxpayers. According to the circuit court, this allegation constrained the Supreme Court in Flast from finding a personal right in the establishment clause sufficient to support standing.130 The dissent in Americans United refuted this argument, noting that citizen standing in establishment clause cases was expressly urged in the Flast briefs and the lower court dissent. s 127. 619 F.2d at 265. 128. 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). 129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 130. 619 F.2d at 261. 131. Id. at 270 (Weis, J., dissenting). See Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 11-13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J., dissenting). March 1981]
伤害是指当政府未能在建制条款的范围内采取行动时，其成员特别关注所有公民所遭受的伤害。与美利坚合众国的法院一样，弗拉斯特最高法院也被感动去寻找一种方法，给予那些只对保留确立条款原则感兴趣的原告诉讼资格。法院在Flast一案中创造了关联检验，目的是在不允许原告追究普遍申诉的规则中开辟一个确立条款例外。美国联合航空公司一案的法院认为，弗拉斯特案的判决受到原告在诉状中对其纳税人身份的指控的限制。根据巡回法院的说法，这一指控限制了Flast最高法院在确立条款中认定个人权利足以支持法律地位美国联合航空公司一案的异议反驳了这一论点，指出Flast的摘要和下级法院的异议都明确要求公民在政教分离条款案件中站在立场。127年代。619 F.2d, 265。128. 405 U.S. 727,739 -40(1972)。129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J.，反对)。130. f .2，第261页。131. Id。第270页(Weis, J.，反对)。参见Flast v. Gardner, 271 F。增刊1,11 -13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J.，反对)。1981年3月)
{"title":"Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. v. HEW: Standing to Sue under the Establishment Clause","authors":"Laury M. Frieber","doi":"10.4324/9781315699868-28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315699868-28","url":null,"abstract":"injury is that its members are particularly concerned about the injury suffered by all citizens when the government fails to act within the confines of the establishment clause. Like the court in Americans United, the Supreme Court in Flast was moved to find a way to grant standing to plaintiffs interested only in preserving the principle of the establishment clause. The Court in Flast created the nexus test in order to carve out an establishment clause exception to the rule against allowing a plaintiff to pursue a generalized grievance. The court in Americans United viewed the decision in Flast as limited by the plaintiffs' allegation in the pleadings of their status as taxpayers. According to the circuit court, this allegation constrained the Supreme Court in Flast from finding a personal right in the establishment clause sufficient to support standing.130 The dissent in Americans United refuted this argument, noting that citizen standing in establishment clause cases was expressly urged in the Flast briefs and the lower court dissent. s 127. 619 F.2d at 265. 128. 405 U.S. 727, 739-40 (1972). 129. 392 U.S. at 118 (Harlan, J., dissenting). 130. 619 F.2d at 261. 131. Id. at 270 (Weis, J., dissenting). See Flast v. Gardner, 271 F. Supp. 1, 11-13 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (Frankel, J., dissenting). March 1981]","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1981-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70434694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1975-01-01DOI: 10.4135/9781452204994.n13
Potter Stewart
{"title":"Or of the Press","authors":"Potter Stewart","doi":"10.4135/9781452204994.n13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204994.n13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1975-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70574786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Retroactive Application of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969","authors":"S. S. Mims","doi":"10.2307/1287529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1287529","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1971-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1287529","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69107453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1969-01-01DOI: 10.4135/9781483302836.n64
D. A. Klein
{"title":"Immigration and Naturalization","authors":"D. A. Klein","doi":"10.4135/9781483302836.n64","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483302836.n64","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1969-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70613801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Municipal Liability for Riot Damage","authors":"Emmet Harrington","doi":"10.2307/1339512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1339512","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"1965-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1339512","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68319043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：