{"title":"偷还是不偷?这就是问题所在","authors":"M. M. Berger, G. Kanner","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the September issue of this journal, Professor Jan Laitos wrote an article about the pending Nevada Supreme Court case of County of Clark u. Hsu. Although the article appears to present for examination both sides of a pending issue, it principally argues for the County's position, concluding that the County ought to prevail. This is a response from the other side, showing why the County is constitutionally required to pay for what it took, and why Professor Laitos' analysis is faulty.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Steal or Not to Steal? That is the Question\",\"authors\":\"M. M. Berger, G. Kanner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the September issue of this journal, Professor Jan Laitos wrote an article about the pending Nevada Supreme Court case of County of Clark u. Hsu. Although the article appears to present for examination both sides of a pending issue, it principally argues for the County's position, concluding that the County ought to prevail. This is a response from the other side, showing why the County is constitutionally required to pay for what it took, and why Professor Laitos' analysis is faulty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":154411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
在本刊9月刊上，Jan Laitos教授写了一篇关于内华达州最高法院悬而未决的克拉克县(County of Clark u. Hsu)案件的文章。虽然这篇文章似乎对一个悬而未决的问题的双方进行了审查，但它主要是为该县的立场辩护，得出结论认为该县应该占上风。这是另一方的回应，说明了为什么该县在宪法上被要求为它所拿走的东西买单，以及为什么莱托斯教授的分析是错误的。
Abstract In the September issue of this journal, Professor Jan Laitos wrote an article about the pending Nevada Supreme Court case of County of Clark u. Hsu. Although the article appears to present for examination both sides of a pending issue, it principally argues for the County's position, concluding that the County ought to prevail. This is a response from the other side, showing why the County is constitutionally required to pay for what it took, and why Professor Laitos' analysis is faulty.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
