ISSN 0024-7081
Vol. 7, Issue 1, 1976January 01, 1976 CDT
ccby-4.0
Antitrust -Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar - Professional Legal Services Are Held to Be Within the Ambit of Federal Antitrust Laws
Antitrust -Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar - Professional Legal Services Are Held to Be Within the Ambit of Federal Antitrust Laws
Michael Sennett,
Articles in Vol. 7, Issue 1, 1976
Vol. 7, Issue 1, 1976
- Table of ContentsJournal Loyola University Chicago Law
- The National Permit Program: A Polluter's Bridge Over Troubled Waters?John T. Bernbom
- Further Unraveling of <i>Sears-Compco</i>: Of Patches, Paladin and Laurel & (and) HardyCharles A. LaffLarry L. Saret
- The Intrusion of Federal Immunity Protection into State Disbarment ProceedingsPatrick E. Deady
- The Constitutional Implications of Discovery Practice in Quasi-Criminal Prosecutions in IllinoisElaine R. Selvan
- Title VII: An Employer's View of Religious Discrimination Since the 1972 AmendmentRamond J. Suberlak
- Indicia of Consent? A Proposal for Change to the Common Law Rule Admitting Evidence of Rape Victim's Character for ChastityJames J. Wesolowski
- Exclusionary Zoning - Does a Zoning Ordinance With Racially Discriminatory Effects Violate the Constitution? <i>Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation v. the Village of Arlington Heights</i>Thomas W. Cody
- Torts - <i>Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.</i> Suit Against Used Car Dealer Based Upon Strict Liability in Tort Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of ActionBrian A. Forgue
- Constitutional Law: <i>Goss v. Lopez</i>: Much Ado About Nothing or the TempestBrannon Heath
- Contractual Arbitration - <i>Associated General Contractors v. Savin Brothers, Inc.</i> - Judicial Review of An Arbitrator's Punitive AwardDavid M. Heller
- Criminal Procedure - Exclusionary Rule - <i>Brown v. Illinois, Miranda</i> Warnings Do Not <i>per se</i> Attenuate the Taint of an Illegal ArrestMary Anne Mason
- Antitrust -<i>Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar</i> - Professional Legal Services Are Held to Be Within the Ambit of Federal Antitrust LawsMichael Sennett
- Federal Civil Procedure - <i>Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society</i> - The Private Attorney General Theory Is No Longer Available to Shift the Cost of Attorneys' Fees from the Victorious Litigant to the Losing PartyLee G. Werner
Michael Sennett, Antitrust -Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar - Professional Legal Services Are Held to Be Within the Ambit of Federal Antitrust Laws, 7 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 254 (1976).