Citation: Jm. Thomas, DEFINING DESIGN DEFECT IN PENNSYLVANIA - RECONCILING AZZARELLO AND THE RESTATEMENT (3RD) OF TORTS, Temple law review, 71(2), 1998, pp. 217-241
Citation: S. Miller, TRIPLE WAYS TO TAKE - THE EVOLUTION AND MEANING OF THE SUPREME-COURT 3 REGULATORY TAKING STANDARDS, Temple law review, 71(2), 1998, pp. 243-292
Citation: Fj. Vandall, AN EXAMINATION OF THE DUTY ISSUE IN HEALTH-CARE LITIGATION - SHOULD HMOS BE LIABLE IN TORT FOR MEDICAL NECESSITY DECISIONS, Temple law review, 71(2), 1998, pp. 293-324
Citation: Dm. Perry, POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION IN 3RD CIRCUIT TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT - A STANDARD WITHOUT A TEST, Temple law review, 71(2), 1998, pp. 325-346
Citation: J. Saunder, HOW A CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS DEATH PENDING DIRECT APPEAL AFFECTS THE VICTIMS RIGHT TO RESTITUTION UNDER THE ABATEMENT AB-INITIO DOCTRINE, Temple law review, 71(2), 1998, pp. 347-374
Citation: Ms. Raspanti et Dm. Laigaie, CURRENT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, Temple law review, 71(1), 1998, pp. 23-53
Citation: V. Gregorian, KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF THE FIFTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED-STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Temple law review, 70(4), 1997, pp. 1139-1150