70-627: (Redirected from Veeck ) "Veeck" redirects here. For the 2002 United States court case, see Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l . William Veeck may refer to: William Veeck Sr. (1876–1933), president of the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball (MLB) franchise from 1919 to 1933 Bill Veeck (1914–1986), son of William Veeck, Sr. and owner of several MLB teams: Philadelphia Phillies, Cleveland Indians, St. Louis Browns, and Chicago White Sox [REDACTED] Topics referred to by
140-545: A Bachelor of Arts in economics in 1971. She received her Juris Doctor from University of Texas School of Law in 1974, where she was a member of the Texas Law Review . She was in private practice in Houston , Texas , from 1974 until 1985, working for the firm of Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones , where she became the firm's first female partner. She specialized in bankruptcy law . She also served as general counsel for
210-459: A case of some governmental body taking action to turn what was otherwise an item of private property into a public one, for sound reasons of public benefit." But the "taking" is without compensation under the Fifth Amendment's requirements for "due process" and "just compensation." Moreover, Veeck does not openly "take" the property. Instead, it determines that "if the government has a need for
280-633: A claim is patent-eligible under § 101," and "is inadequate," so that it "should not longer be relied on." On the appeal of Bilski to the Supreme Court, a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer stated that the members of the Court were unanimous that State Street was not the law. Many academic commentators support the Fifth Circuit's approach in Veeck as advancing the public interest but some criticize it as
350-491: A complaint of misconduct against Jones on June 4, 2013, after she had allegedly said that "racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime" and are "prone to commit acts of violence" that are more "heinous" than members of other ethnic groups. According to the complaint, Jones also stated that a death sentence is a service to defendants because it allows them to make peace with God and that she "referred to her personal religious views as justification for
420-415: A copyright holder to exclude his work from any publication or dissemination." SBCCI responds that "the fair use doctrine as well as its honorable intentions will prevent abuse. Free availability of the law, by this logic, has degenerated into availability as long as SBCCI chooses not to file suit." The court said it rejected that: "Instead, we read Banks , Wheaton , and related cases consistently to enunciate
490-513: A death row inmate who had filed a pro se motion to drop his appeal while his attorney was abroad could not later reinstate his appeal. In June 2017, Jones dissented when the court found that a university did not violate the Due Process Clause or Title IX when it expelled a student for committing a campus sexual assault and his girlfriend, who had recorded the assault and shared the video on social media. In May 2018, Jones wrote for
560-649: A derogation of creators' rights and as disincentivizing. Lawrence A. Cunningham, compared the three Veeck opinions—the Jones majority opinion, the Higginbotham dissent, and the "blistering" Weiner dissent. Cunningham saw Higginbotham's dissenting opinion as the one of the three opinions that "most resonates in expressing the federal judiciary's inherent limitations in addressing such a sprawling public policy issue." In his view: "Cases and controversies federal courts resolve are not suitable forums to provide optimal solutions to
630-772: A letter published in The Wall Street Journal criticizing a complaint brought by the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against fellow circuit judge Pauline Newman . Jones stated that the refusal of the circuit to transfer the case to another circuit for review, and to instead to have the same judges act as "prosecutors, judges, jurors and witnesses", as "inexplicable". In 2024, Jones described criticism of court-shopping (the practice of selectively filing cases in jurisdictions where favorable rulings are expected) as "attacks on
700-401: A permanent injunction and ordered an award of monetary damages. An appeal followed. Initially, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed, but its decision was vacated and the case was set for rehearing en banc . The panel concluded (a) the incentive of copyright was needed to continue production of these useful model codes; (b) there was no evidence that Veeck had been denied access to
770-507: A similar enactment of a model building code. The court distinguished cases from the Ninth and Second Circuits holding that government reference to (not copying or enactment of) a preexisting private system for identifying medical conditions and a listing of valuations for used cars did not eliminate the copyright owners' rights to prevent others from making copies of the material. Under the copyright statute, facts are unprotectable. Moreover, there
SECTION 10
#1732848250198840-441: Is " constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all." In effect, judicial writings are works for hire that belong to the public that pays judges' salaries. Banks , read together with Wheaton , on which it relies, stands for the rule that the law "is not subject to copyright." The law is not simply what a law-proposing body such as SBCCI offers to
910-402: Is . . . quite strong, on both public policy and traditional copyright grounds. The initial panel decision and the en banc dissent in Veeck , however, as well as the cases on which they rely, show the power of the "restitutionary impulse" in the judiciary and courts' willingness to fill apparent gaps in protection by expanding copyright coverage. Even the en banc majority in Veeck
980-458: Is a merger of idea and expression once a model building code is enacted into positive law. Because there is only one way to express the meaning of the building codes, the idea embodied in the law merges with SBCCI's expression, and at that point, renders copyright protection unavailable. Under the Supreme Court's Feist decision, facts "may not be copyrighted and are part of the public domain available to every person." SBCCI argues that this "ignores
1050-454: Is assumed "that citizens do have access because either the market will provide the code to public entities, who make the decisions about access to citizens, or the market will provide to those who can pay." He argues: But by turning the drafting process into a market, one potentially turns a democratic process into a discrete transaction between a demander of laws (the legislature) and a supplier of laws (the drafting organization). Furthermore,
1120-540: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int%27l Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc. , 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), was a 2002 en banc 9-6 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit , about the scope of copyright protection for building codes and by implication other privately drafted laws adopted by states and municipal governments . A three-fifths majority of
1190-473: Is the enactment of a model code into law that makes the code unprotectable under copyright law rather than inevitable lack of expression. The court did not reach a conclusive result, however, when the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Among other things, the court held: "Defendant has not shown that the disputed provisions of Plaintiff's model building code are not copyrightable as a matter of law." In Atlantic Woodland Corp. v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc. ,
1260-461: Is well established that judicial opinions are not protectable by copyright. There is a division of authority, however, on whether to follow the Veeck case as to municipal building codes. In International Code Council, Inc. v. National Fire Code Protection Ass'n, Inc. , one company engaged in the business of promoting building codes sued another such company for copyright infringement. The Illinois district court interpreted Veeck to hold that it
1330-658: The Banks case explains the rule on two grounds, both of which (SBCCI argues) are inapplicable here. First, Banks is said to deny copyright to judicial opinions because judges, whose salaries are paid by the government, cannot claim to own the opinions. Also, they do not need copyright incentives to write opinions. In contrast, SBCCI is unlike government employees, it says, and as the private "author" of model codes it allegedly depends on copyright incentives in order to perform their public service. Second, SBCCI argues that Banks in effect says that due process requires adequate public access to
1400-596: The Republican Party of Texas from 1982 to 1983. Jones was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on February 27, 1985, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit , to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 3, 1985, and received commission on April 4, 1985, at the age of 35. She served as chief judge from January 16, 2006, to October 1, 2012, succeeding Carolyn Dineen King . She sits on
1470-596: The "takings" argument: "This is not, however, a 'takings' case, not least because SBCCI urged localities to adopt its model codes. The issue in the case is . . . the legal consequences flowing from the permission that SBCCI gave." Several standard-setting organizations filed amicus curiae briefs "out of fear that their copyrights may be vitiated simply by the common practice of governmental entities' incorporating their standards in laws and regulations." The court sought to reassure them: This case does not involve references to extrinsic standards. Instead, it concerns
SECTION 20
#17328482501981540-456: The Fifth Circuit in rejecting the petition on procedural grounds, but she took the unusual step of handing down a six-page concurrence to the judgment of the court. The concurrence credited the evidence presented by McCorvey and sharply criticized the Supreme Court's rulings in Roe and in a less famous case that was decided simultaneously, Doe v. Bolton . She quoted Justice Byron White 's dissent in
1610-503: The Internet to provide the public with its due process right to free access to the law, he is wrong. The fact that he purchased the codes by just ordering and paying for them shows that the public can do the same. Therefore, the court said, " Banks is clearly distinguishable to the present case or scenario as stated above. Accordingly, the Court finds that SBCCI's works should be afforded their copyright protection." The district court entered
1680-634: The Ninth Circuit held that incorporation of a classification system (taxonomy) for medical procedures in Medicare and Medicaid regulations does not make them unprotectable under copyright law. However, the court limited the ability of the AMA to enforce its copyright against a health maintenance organization that used the taxonomy in order to comply with federal law requiring it. The court viewed such copyright enforcement as copyright misuse – an inequitable extension of
1750-462: The SBCCI code as law. Peter Veeck operates a website that provides free access via the Internet to information about the area of Texas north of Dallas, including some of the area's municipal codes and ordinances. He learned that Anna and Savoy had adopted the SBCCI code and went to those towns to obtain copies of the code, but was unsuccessful. He then bought electronic copies of the codes from SBCCI. Despite
1820-612: The Second Circuit held that incorporation of used-car valuations in insurance statutes and regulations does not make them unprotectable by copyright. In John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-Conant Props., Inc. , the First Circuit declined to follow Veeck . A real estate developer had acquired a parcel of land covered by a 30-year restrictive covenant to which a previous owner had agreed. The covenant required that any residential development conform with site plan drawings submitted by
1890-549: The Supreme Court precedents applied only to judicial opinions. The dissent regarded the majority's policy claims as mere "feel-good" and "symbolic" rhetoric, not supportable, precedent-based substantive law. The public benefits, they claimed, by delegating the code-drafting process to such organizations as SBCCI, for they can provide the service at a lower cost and in a more efficient and expert manner; however, these organizations need copyright protection to subsidize their public-service activity. SBCCI petitioned for certiorari but it
1960-514: The Supreme Court vacancy filled by Justice David Souter . The Chicago Sun-Times and several other newspapers reported on July 1, 2005, that she had also been considered for nomination to the Supreme Court during the presidency of George W. Bush . In her opinions, she has questioned the legal reasoning which legalized abortion , advocated streamlining death penalty cases, invalidated a federal ban on possession of machine guns and advocated toughening bankruptcy laws. In 2006, Jones found that
2030-593: The Misplaced Pages article on the case, a chart is shown that illustrates how the wording of the patent claim corresponds to the US tax statute and regulations, so that the patent is thus, in effect, one on compliance with US tax law by using a computer (which is the only feasible way to comply with the law). In In re Bilski , however, the Federal Circuit decided that the State Street Bank test "is insufficient to determine whether
2100-651: The board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America and the Garland Walker American Inns of Court . In 2010, Jones visited Iraq as part of the U.S. State Department's Rule of Law program, where she advised and encouraged Iraqi and Kurdish judges. Jones has been mentioned frequently as being on the list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States . A 1990 report from The New York Times cited her as George H.W. Bush 's second choice for
2170-683: The case of a model code, on the other hand, the text of the model serves no other purpose than to become law. SBCCI operates with the sole motive and purpose of creating codes that will become obligatory in law. SBCCI pleaded that without full copyright protection for model codes, despite their enactment as the law in hundreds or thousands of jurisdictions, SBCCI will lack the revenue to continue its public service of code drafting. Thus SBCCI needs copyright's economic incentives. The court had several responses. First, it did not believe SBCCI, since it "has survived and grown over 60 years" without court copyright protection. Second, "the most fruitful approach for
William Veeck - Misplaced Pages Continue
2240-633: The complaints to the judicial ethics panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . On August 12, 2014, the judicial ethics panel of the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint by citing lack of evidence to justify disciplining Jones. The complainants appealed to the Judicial Conference of the United States, which affirmed the ruling of the judicial ethics panel in February 2015. In August 2023, Jones wrote
2310-458: The copyright infringement issue. The district court granted summary judgment in SBCCI's favor. The district court began by considering the Supreme Court's 1888 decision in Banks v. Manchester , which held that judicial opinions are not subject to copyright protection. Banks in turn rests upon two grounds neither of which, the district court said, would justify invalidation of SBCCI's copyright protection: These considerations do not apply here,
2380-541: The copyright owner's otherwise lawful monopoly. The Ninth Circuit also considered improper a bargain that the AMA had made with the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), in which AMA licensed the agency to use its copyrighted taxonomy on a royalty-free basis "in exchange for HCFA's agreement not to use a competing coding system." And in CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Mkt. Reports, Inc. ,
2450-729: The copyright was enforceable. In State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. , the Federal Circuit upheld the validity of a patent that effectively covered a section of the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations. In its 1998 State Street Bank opinion, the Federal Circuit upheld U.S. Patent No. 5,193,056, entitled "Data Processing System for Hub and Spoke Financial Services Configuration," because it "produced 'a useful, concrete and tangible result'—a final share price momentarily fixed for recording and reporting purposes and even accepted and relied upon by regulatory authorities and in subsequent trades." As shown in
2520-498: The court considered a copyright infringement action for copying village development plans that had been accepted as part of an agreement to annex the area, so that the plans became required by law and fell into the public domain. The court held those such facts, if proved, would provide a complete defense, and it therefore denied a motion to dismiss the defense. On the other hand, in Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. American Med. Ass'n ,
2590-467: The court when it found that Texas Senate Bill 4 , which prohibits local governments or public employees from "endorsing" sanctuary city policies, did not violate the First Amendment . Jones attracted attention for her opinion in the case of McCorvey v. Hill (2004), which was a request by Norma McCorvey – the 'Jane Roe' of Roe v. Wade – to vacate the finding of that case. Jones joined
2660-484: The court's fifteen judges held that copyright protection no longer applied to model codes once they were enacted into law. The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) published a standard building code that it proposed as a model code for municipalities. It encourages local government entities to enact its codes into law by reference, without cost to them. The towns of Anna and Savoy in North Texas adopted
2730-552: The death penalty." Jones allegedly made the remarks during a speech to the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society . However, the speech was not recorded, and the ethics complaint was based solely on affidavits from audience members. In part because Jones had been recently served as the chief judge of the Fifth Circuit, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts , in his administrative capacity, transferred
2800-400: The district court maintained, because "SBCCI is a private non-profit corporation which carries out research, compiles data, drafts standardized codes, and then prints them in a usable fashion for its customers," without payment from the public. Without copyright protection, organizations like SDCCI would be unable to continue their work. While Veeck argues that it is necessary to publish codes on
2870-405: The early case law. In 1834, the Supreme Court interpreted the first federal copyright laws and unanimously held that "no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court ..." The case involved a copyright infringement suit between early reporters of U.S. Supreme Court opinions, both of whom were selling editions of their reports. Peters, who had replaced Wheaton,
William Veeck - Misplaced Pages Continue
2940-474: The enactment process." He points to alternative incentivization means: "professionals in the fields affected by particular standards and codes may have ample incentive to continue to buy the official sets of standards notwithstanding the potential availability of other, unofficial editions." Dennis Karjala sees building codes as functional works designed to regulate how buildings are built: The case against copyright protection for privately drafted model codes
3010-528: The fact that the codes contained a copyright notice and warnings against copying, Veeck uploaded the codes on his website. SBCCI demanded that Veeck cease and desist from infringing its copyrights. In response, Veeck filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that he did not violate the Copyright Act. SBCCI counterclaimed for copyright infringement and other allegedly wrongful acts. The facts were not disputed and each party moved for summary judgment on
3080-467: The financing of law making through public means also undermines democratic values. In most private code drafting cases, the organization allows the state to use the model code without charge. The organization finances its enterprise through sales of the draft code to libraries, law firms, and other interested parties. In other words, general tax revenues are not used to fund law making. To the extent that tax revenues serve to maintain government accountability,
3150-403: The form of commentary, questions and answers, lists of adopting jurisdictions and other information valuable to a reader. The organization could also charge fees for the massive amount of interpretive information about the codes that it doles out. The court therefore reversed the judgment against Veeck and instructed dismissal of the complaint. There were two dissenting opinions, one for four of
3220-514: The former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit . Jones was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on February 27, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on April 3, 1985, and received commission on April 4, 1985. Jones served as chief judge of the Fifth Circuit from 2006 to 2012. Born in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, Jones graduated from Cornell University with
3290-495: The goal of fostering competition in creativity." It also argues that no merger occurs here "because there are many possible ways to express model codes: both the multiplicity of building standards and the variety of ways to express those standards compel the conclusion that the ideas have not merged with their expression." The court replied that the argument misses the point: Once the law is enacted, it cannot be expressed authoritatively any way except verbatim. The court also rejected
3360-576: The guise of constitutional adjudication." Jones dissented when the 5th Circuit denied en banc in a case regarding what constitutes a 'seaman'. The majority ruled that liftboat workers are not exempt from overtime pay, and Jones accused the majority of flouting Encino Motorcars v. Navarro . In 2011, Jones yelled at her colleague James L. Dennis during an oral argument, telling him to "shut up." She later apologized for her "inappropriate language" and stated that Dennis accepted her apology. A group of civil rights organizations and legal ethicists filed
3430-400: The judgment. In an earlier First Circuit case, however, Building Officials & Code Adm'rs v. Code Tech., Inc. , the court had denied copyright protection in a building code that a private organization drafted, because the court thought the group did not need a copyright incentive to draft the code and because the court saw potentially serious due process concerns with access to the code if
3500-412: The judgment. The Court's opinion concluded: "It may be proper to remark that the Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court, and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right." Thus, any copyright protection for publications of judicial opinions could cover only the added materials such as summaries of
3570-427: The latter that described the Supreme Court's decision as an "exercise of raw judicial power". She concluded: "That the court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under
SECTION 50
#17328482501983640-423: The law, but that argument does not apply because there is adequate public access to its building codes. The court disagreed that this is a proper reading of Banks . Rather, " Banks declares at the outset of its discussion that copyright law in the United States is purely a matter of statutory construction." Then the Supreme Court denies that judges are the authors or proprietors of their opinions. What their work
3710-420: The legislature: Lawmaking bodies in this country enact rules and regulations only with the consent of the governed . The very process of lawmaking demands and incorporates contributions by "the people," in an infinite variety of individual and organizational capacities. Even when a governmental body consciously decides to enact proposed model building codes, it does so based on various legislative considerations,
3780-448: The models have been adopted by a legislative body and become "the law". Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. The court traced
3850-459: The now-complete condominium project. The district court dismissed the affirmative defense based on Veeck . The defendant corporation that had built the condominium subdivision appealed. On appeal, the First Circuit held that the covenant and its drawings were not equivalent to the village zoning law nor was the village's vote to approve the restrictive covenant, incorporating by reference the drawings; it therefore held Veeck inapplicable and affirmed
3920-422: The opinions and commentaries on them, but not the judicially authored texts of the opinions themselves. Counsel for both parties in the case agreed that statutes could not be copyrighted. In 1888, the Supreme Court extended the rule of Wheaton v. Peters to state court opinions, saying that the law " is free for publication to all." State courts made similar rulings for their courts and laws. SBCCI argues that
3990-431: The power over the purse strings is lost in the process. Ghosh considers unworkable the majority compromise in which the black-letter text of the code is not subject to copyright while the notes and comments are subject. He argues that the text often cannot be understood properly without recourse to the notes and comments, because of "the interdependence between enacted code and notes, both for interpretation purposes and in
4060-406: The previous owner. The new owner tried to modify these restrictions; when it failed to do so it built a condominium subdivision that adhered to the site plans in the covenant. The architectural firm that had earlier designed those plans then sued for copyright infringement, and eventually won a jury verdict and a judgment in the district court for over $ 1.3 million—essentially all the profits made from
4130-479: The principle that the law," whether it has its source in judicial opinions or statutes, ordinances or regulations, is not subject to federal copyright law." In deciding that the municipal building codes in this case could be freely copied, the court relied on the First Circuit's decision in Building Officials & Code Administrators v. Code Technology, Inc. , ( BOCA )—the only other appellate case addressing
4200-486: The problems of private standards embodied in public law. Such a framework must be provided by a more elaborate policy-oriented process." Cunningham suggests that when government endorsement abrogates copyright, as Veeck holds, perhaps that is a "taking" that the Constitution insists be based on procedural due process and adequate compensation. Shubha Ghosh questions the viability of a market-oriented approach in which it
4270-404: The public entities and the potentially regulated industries lies in mutual cooperation. The self-interest of the builders, engineers, designers and other relevant tradesmen should also not be overlooked in the calculus." Third: [I]f SBCCI wants to enhance the market value of its model codes, SBCCI could easily publish them as do the compilers of statutes and judicial opinions, with "value-added" in
SECTION 60
#17328482501984340-407: The reporter from 1816 to 1827, decided to market a less expensive product in which he omitted Wheaton's annotations and summaries but copied the texts of the Supreme Court's opinions, both those preceding his term as reporter and those he reported himself. Wheaton found his market dried up and sued Peters for infringement. Wheaton lost in the trial court and appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed
4410-407: The same term This disambiguation page lists articles about people with the same name. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Veeck&oldid=1055100023 " Category : Human name disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description
4480-459: The six dissenting judges, another for all six of them. The four-judge opinion argued that it should be left to Congress to decide whether such subject matter should be excluded from copyright protection. They would have decided the case on contract grounds—that Veeck breached the license terms against copying and distribution of the code. The dissenting opinion in which all six dissenters joined would have found copyright infringement. In their view
4550-599: The sum of which produce its version of "the law." In performing their function, the lawmakers represent the public will, and the public are the final "authors" of the law. SBCCI is wrong about access, too, the court maintained. That law is in the public domain means that it is there "for whatever use the citizens choose to make of it. Citizens may reproduce copies of the law for many purposes, not only to guide their actions but to influence future legislation, educate their neighborhood association, or simply to amuse." The public's rights cannot be reconciled with "the statutory right of
4620-412: The town building codes; and (c) there was no merger of idea and expression because "contrary to Veeck's insistence—there remain many ways to write model building codes, not just one." Judge Edith Jones began her opinion for the nine-judge majority with this summary: The issue in this en banc case is the extent to which a private organization may assert copyright protection for its model codes, after
4690-411: The use of . . . private property, then the property must no longer be 'property' at all." Hardy argues that if a building code is original and expressive enough to gain copyright in the first place, the legislative act of making it a law does not change those facts to turn it into non-property. Edith Jones Edith Hollan Jones (born April 7, 1949) is a United States circuit judge and
4760-550: The wholesale adoption of a model code promoted by its author, SBCCI, precisely for use as legislation. Caselaw that derives from official incorporation of extrinsic standards is distinguishable in reasoning and result. The court pointed out that such organizations as the American Medical Association that had promulgated standards that government agencies later referred to in regulations had not: solicited incorporation of their standards by legislators or regulators. In
4830-517: Was denied. Before ruling the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General, who filed an amicus curiae brief recommending denial of certiorari. The government said: The court of appeals' holding that such a code may be copied by interested members of the public is correct, it is consistent with the views of the only other court of appeals to address the same issue, and it does not conflict with any decision of any other court of appeals. It
4900-410: Was unable to craft an opinion that would treat model codes as what the opinion expressly recognizes them to be-if not as directly functional works, then as works that are designed and intended to be used as functional tools for regulating various forms of human behavior through enactment into law. Trotter Hardy views Veeck as an example of eminent domain without compensation: "In other words, we have
#197802