The false promise of fiduciary government

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1145-1208

  Davis, Seth ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896972415     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. I Tamar Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71 C.41. L. Rxv. 795, 798 (1983).
2. Leonard I. Rotman, Fiduciary Law's "Holy Grail": Reconciling Theory and Practice in Fiduciaiy Jurisprudence, 91 B.U. L. REv. 921, 933 (2011).
3. Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545, 546 (N.Y. 1928).
4. Arthur B. Laby, The Fiduciary Obligation as the Adaption of Ends, 56 Buir. L REV. 99, 107 - 09 (2008).
5. Jonathan R. Macey, An Economic Analysis of the Various Rationales for Making Shareholden the Exclusive Beneficiaries of Corporate Fiduciary Duties, 21 STETSON L. Rxv. 23, 25 (1991)
6. Scott FitzGibbon, Fiduciary Relationships Are Not Contracts, 82 M.ARc. L. Rxv. 303, 305 (1999).
7. See Criddle, Administration, supra note 4, at 464. On SIGs and PIGs, see Roderick M. Hills, Jr., Against Preemption: How Federalism Can Improve the National Legislative Process, 82 N.Y.U. L. REv. 1, 32 (2007).
8. Nance V. EPA, 645 F.2d 701, 711 (9th Cir. 1981).
9. See Mazy Christina Wood, The Indian Trust Responsibility: Protecting Tribal Lands and Resources Through Claims of Injunctive Relief Against Federal Agencies, 39 TULSA L. REv. 355, 363 - 64 (2003).
10. N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Indian L. Rptr. 3065, 3071 (D. Mont. 1985).
11. Kevin Gover, An Indian Trust for the Twenty-First Century, 46 NAT. RESOURCES J. 317, 356 (2006).
12. Nathaniel Persily, Reply: In Defense of Foxes Guarding Henhouses: The Case for Judicial Acquiescence to Incumbent-Protecting Geriymanders, 116 HAav. L. Ray. 649, 674 (2002).