Skip to main content
Log in

Book reviews

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. See J. Scarborough,Roman Medicine, Thames and Hudson, 1969, 56–57.

  2. See, for example, G. Sharpe,The Law & Medicine in Canada, Butterworths, 1987, Ch. 11.

  3. At p.11.

  4. Per Lord Hailsham inD. v.N.S.P.C.C. [1978] A.C. 171 at 230 (a view which has not received universal agreement).

  5. E.G.Belabel v.Air India [1988] 2 All E.R. 246.

  6. Supra n.4.

  7. Rogers v.Secretary of State for Home Dept. [1972] 2 All. E.R. 1057. Cf. Agar [1990]Crim. L.R. 183 and Langford [1990]Crim. L.R. 652

  8. British Steel Corporation v.Granada T.V. [1981] A.C. 1096. Cf. In Re An Inquiry under the Company Securities (Inside Dealing) Act 1985 [1988] A.C. 660.

  9. R.M. Unger, “The Critical Legal Studies Movement”, 96Harvard Law Review (1983), 563 at 597.

    Google Scholar 

  10. (1763) 19 St. Tr. 1153.

  11. (1765) 19 St. Tr. 1029.

References

  1. One of the leaders of the Critical Legal Studies Movement is R.M. Unger. A detailed analysis of his “The Critical Legal Studies Movement”, 96Harvard Law Review (1983), 563, is supplied by J.M. Finnis in his essay “On the Critical Legal Studies Movement”, in J. Eekelaar and J Bell, eds.,Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Clarendon Press, 1987, 145–165.

  2. Finnis,op. cit. at 160.

  3. Or black-letter.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salako, S.E., Lower, M.L.P. Book reviews. Liverpool Law Rev 15, 215–219 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079921

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079921

Navigation