Part V Book Section
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Candace Zierdt, Part V, in Implementation Guide for Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Candace Zierdt, Part V, in Implementation Guide for Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Paul Boudreaux, An Individual Preference Approach to Suburban Racial Segregation, 27 Fordham Urb. L.J. 533 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Candace Zierdt, Part VI, in Implementation Guide for Model Tribal Secured Transactions Act (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Roberta Flowers, Forward: Prosecution Law Symposium, 29 Stetson L. Rev. 1 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Invoking Private Property Rights for Environmental Purposes: The Takings Implications of Government-Authorized Aerial Pesticide Spraying, 18 Stanford Envtl. L. Journal 65 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Part II of this article summarizes the history of medfly eradication efforts in the United States and the events surrounding Florida's 1997 infestation and eradication experience. Part III reviews private property rights in light of physical takings cases. Applying the principles examined in Part III to wide-scale aerial pesticide spraying, Part IV explains why these invasions constitute takings, despite their minimal size and limited duration. Part IV also examines the possible government defenses of nuisance and necessity, and notes the difference between governmental intervention to protect public health and safety and invasive action to protect a specific industry. Part V assesses the implications of a takings challenge to wide-scale aerial pesticide spraying.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Review of Jan de Groof and Hilde Penneman (eds.), The Legal Status of Pupils in Europe, 24 Educ. L. Rev. 208 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, You Done Good, Kid, 28 Stetson L. Rev. 1009 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Peter Lake and Robert D. Bickel, The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life? (1st ed., Carolina Academic Press, 1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Casting Aside the Tulloch Rule, reprint, 10 Environmental Litigation Committee Newsletter 11 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Infant Class Sizes in the New Admissions Framework: A Devolution of Power, 11 Educ. & L. 253 (1999)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
It was one of the major planks of the Blair government's legislative programme that it would set a limit on school class sizes for the youngest children. Whilst the objective of reducing class sizes no doubt has much to recommend it from the point of view of raising educational standards, it is also inevitable that parental choice of school, already emasculated, will be limited even further. It is particularly likely to be borne out in practice wherever governing bodies and Head Teachers are insufficiently aware of the ramifications of all the other rules and regulations enacted alongside the '30 pupil' limit. Nevertheless, it will be argued in this essay that, if Head Teachers and governing bodies are prepared to persevere with the small print of the Act and the extraordinarily convoluted regulations and departmental Codes of Practice, circulars and guidance issued along with it, then there is a case for saying that the new infant class size limit can - when coupled with other changes in the law introduced by SSFA 1998 - sometimes be used as a tool both to increase the devolution of power down to individual schools and to improve parental choice.