Roman Law
roman-law is a key legal principle explored in case law.
Cases Applying This Concept
- Jeannie REDMANN v. MARTIN'S WINE CELLAR51 So. 3d 41
- In Re McLEAN WINE CO., INC., Debtor463 B.R. 838
- Demian C. DESCHEPPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDWEST WINE AND SPIRITS, INC. Haus Wine and Spirits, Inc. Haus Wine & Spirits, Inc. Direct Mail Resources, Inc. KIG Properties, LLC David Gargano Zaira Karina Gargano Matthew Helms and Michael Laird84 F. Supp. 3d 767
- Darren L. POLLACK, Employee v. SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF AMERICA, Employer, and Specialty Risk Services, Inc., Carrier405 S.C. 9
- James BUECHLER v. YOUR WINE & SPIRIT SHOPPE, INC.846 F. Supp. 2d 406
- Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law AppealsAC 23-P-369
- Nathan E. MICHEL v. STATE of Louisiana, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW167 So. 3d 654
- ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, Judicial Council No. 1, IFPTE, AFL-CIO & CLC, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee777 F.3d 402
- Nathan E. MICHEL v. STATE of Louisiana, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW159 So. 3d 1069
- THOMAS BOLLAY, and v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, and Respondent STATE LANDS COMMISSION, Real Party in Interest and193 Cal. App. 4th 103
- Lighthouse Masonry, Inc., & anothe v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals & another466 Mass. 692
- Barber v. D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges19-CV-266, 19-CV-670 & 19-CV-1242
- Exxon Mobil Global Services v. State Office of Administrative Hearings, and Keneshia Washington in Her Official Capacity as Administrative Law Judge15-24-00034-CV
- Exxon Mobil Global Services v. State Office of Administrative Hearings, and Keneshia Washington in Her Official Capacity as Administrative Law Judge15-24-00034-CV
- Exxon Mobil Global Services v. State Office of Administrative Hearings, and Keneshia Washington in Her Official Capacity as Administrative Law Judge15-24-00034-CV
- James J. DONELON, Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUISIANA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, Through Its Director, Ann WISE, Defendant-Appellee522 F.3d 564
- New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission v. Joseph Divincenzo and Jorge Martinez (Office of Administrative Law)445 N.J. Super. 187
- Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Afl-Cio v. Federal Service Impasses PanelCivil Action No. 2020-1026
- Caryn Hines & Claudia Barber v. DC Commission on Selection & Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings16-AA-735 & 16-AA-867
- CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, AND HEARING OFFICERS IN STATE EMPLOYMENT, and v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc., Cross-defendants and Appellants JAN FRANK, Cross-complainant and Respondent JOHN CHIANG, as Controller, etc., and195 Cal. App. 4th 119
- Moses v. Macferlan2 Burr 1005
- Gaius v. Trebatius Testa (fictionalized in Justinian's Digest)Dig. 1.1.1-2
- Ulpian's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 1.1.10]Dig. 1.1.10
- Papinian's Opinions [Dig. 50.17.7]Dig. 50.17.7
- Celsus's Definition of Law [Dig. 1.1.1]Dig. 1.1.1 (Celsus)
- Pomponius's Encyclical on the Origin of Law [Dig. 1.2.2]Dig. 1.2.2
- Paul's Commentary on the Edict [Dig. 12.6.23.2]Dig. 12.6.23.2
- Julian's dig. on Servitudes [Dig. 8.1.1]Dig. 8.1.1 (Ulpian quoting Julian)
- Gaius Institutes I.1-7Gaius Inst. 1.1-7 (4th century AD)
- Justinian's Institutes 1.2.prJustinian Inst. 1.2.pr
- Gaius Institutes 1.52-54 (Patria Potestas)Gaius Inst. 1.52-54
- Ulpian on Guardianship [Dig. 26.1.1]Dig. 26.1.1 (Ulpian)
- Gaius Institutes 2.1-9 (Res Divini Iuris)Gaius Inst. 2.1-9
- Gaius Institutes 2.40-42 (Vindicta and Usucapio)Gaius Inst. 2.40-42
- Gaius Institutes 2.94-96 (Traditio and Occupatio)Gaius Inst. 2.94-96
- Lex Aquilia (Dig. 9.2) – Dammum Iniuria DatumDig. 9.2.2 (Ulpian), Gaius Inst. 3.210-214
- Gaius Institutes 3.1 (Obligationes ex Contractu)Gaius Inst. 3.1
- Gaius Institutes 3.88 (Mandatum)Gaius Inst. 3.88
- Gaius Institutes 3.182-183 (Furtum)Gaius Inst. 3.182-183
- Gaius Institutes 3.196 (Iniuria)Gaius Inst. 3.196
- Gaius Institutes 4.1-5 (Actiones in rem and in personam)Gaius Inst. 4.1-5
- Gaius Institutes 4.31-34 (Formulae and Praetor)Gaius Inst. 4.31-34
- Justinian's Constitution Tanta (Constitutio Tanta)Constitutio Tanta (AD 533)
- Justinian's Constitutio Deo AuctoreConstitutio Deo Auctore (AD 533)
- Edictum Perpetuum (Praetor's Edict)Dig. 1.1.7 (quoting Papinian) + Gaius Inst. 4.11-14
- Rescript of Septimius Severus (Cod. 1.14.3)CJ 1.14.3 (Severus and Antoninus)
- Gaius Institutes 1.10 (Lex Duodecim Tabularum)Gaius Inst. 1.10 (quoting XII Tables)
- Lex Hortensia (287 BC)Gaius Inst. 1.3; Livy, Periochae 11
- Senatus consultum Silanianum (Dig. 29.5)Dig. 29.5.1 (Ulpian)
- Gaius Institutes 2.101 (Fideicommissum)Gaius Inst. 2.101
Exam Application
Apply roman law by identifying the relevant facts, citing the leading case, and explaining the ratio.