Would this mean those Confederate bonds are now worth something?

South Carolina Lawyers Weekly > News > Sidebar > Would this mean those Confederate bonds are now worth something?

Would this mean those Confederate bonds are now worth something?

By Amber Nimocks
Published: November 14, 2012
Time posted: 3:31 pm
Tags: Confederate States of America, sidebar

We here at Lawyers Weekly surely aren’t alone in enjoying the irony of the common denominator shared by the secessionist petitions that set the media abuzz last week: The separatists all found a forum for organizing and reaching the media via the Obama administration’s official web site.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to SC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

< Previous Article
Next Article >

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Recent Opinion Digests

Taxation – Administrative — Refund Request – Informal Claim – Insufficient – Civil Practice – Jurisdiction

Babcock Center, Inc. v. United States Plaintiff’s claim for a tax refund for the first three quarters of 2007 mentioned the fourth quarter only in the body of the statement of facts: “In striving to carry out Babcock Center’s mission, budgeting and cash management are difficult due to the nature of its funding.

Criminal Practice – No Due Process Claim from Contraband Cigarette Sting

U.S. v. Hasan The sale of untaxed cigarettes by government agents during a two-year investigation of trafficking in contraband cigarettes was not so “outrageous” and “shocking” as to violate defendant’s right to due process, and the 4th Circuit affirms his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and § 2342(a).

Contract – CSX Did Not Spell Out Carmack Limitation

ABB Inc. v. CSX Transportation Inc. Rail carrier CSX Transportation Inc. is liable for the full $550,000 in damage to a $1.3 million electrical transformer shipped from St. Louis to Pittsburgh, and the district court erred in holding that the parties had limited CSX’s potential liability in the bill of lading to $25,000; the 4th Circuit says the parties did not modify the carrier’s liability exposure, as permitted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, and vacates the judgment limiting CSX’s liability to $25,000.

Administrative – Lanham Act Preemption May Work in Ethanol Case

American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper Plaintiff trade groups that represent the natural gas and oil industry who want to enjoin enforcement of North Carolina’s Ethanol Blending Statute get another chance to prove Lanham Act preemption; the 4th Circuit agrees with the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants, the state and a marketing association, on plaintiffs’ preemption challenges under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and federal renewable fuel program, but says there are unresolved issues on plaintiffs’ Lanham Act preemption challenge.

Domestic Relations – Equitable Division & Alimony – Alabama Judgment — Civil Practice – Personal Jurisdiction – Limited Appearance – Res Judicata – Constitutional – Full Faith & Credit

Ware v. Ware Even though an Alabama trial court wrongly decided that it had personal jurisdiction over the respondent-wife, since she made a limited appearance through counsel to contest personal jurisdiction but then failed to appeal the trial court’s ruling, that ruling is res judicata and is entitled to full faith and credit from S.C. courts.