Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAckerman, Bruce
dc.contributor.authorHassler, William
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:17.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:36:07Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:36:07Z
dc.date.issued1981-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/153
dc.identifier.contextkey1436295
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/764
dc.description.abstractApparently, we have not been clear enough. Smith and Randle read into our article the very message we were at such pains to disclaim. They suppose us intent on convincing the court of appeals to second-guess the EPA on the merits of the scrubbing controversy. It is only on this premise that they can think that their attack on five factual assertions could be "central" 2 to our argument for judicial reversal of the EPA decision.
dc.titleBeyond the New Deal: Reply
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:36:07Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/153
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Beyond_the_New_Deal__Reply.pdf
Size:
1.515Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record