TUScholarShare will be undergoing an upgrade from February 17th – March 4th, 2025. During this time, content in the repository will still be accessible for viewing and downloading, but no new content will be deposited to the repository. All deposit forms will remain functional and new content will continue to be accepted. However, new content submitted for deposit during this time will not be made live in the repository until the upgrade has been completed. If you have any questions, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu.

Show simple item record

dc.creatorSinden, Amy
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-21T20:33:15Z
dc.date.available2021-06-21T20:33:15Z
dc.date.issued2016-09-26
dc.identifier.citationAmy Sinden, Supreme Court Remains Skeptical of the “Cost-Benefit State,” The Regulatory Review (Sept. 26, 2016), https://www.theregreview.org/2016/09/26/sinden-cost-benefit-state/.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6613
dc.format.extent5 pages
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofFaculty/ Researcher Works
dc.relation.haspartThe Regulatory Review
dc.relation.isreferencedbyUniversity of Pennsylvania Law School
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserved
dc.subjectCass Sunstein
dc.subjectCost-benefit analysis
dc.subjectRegulatory cost
dc.titleSupreme Court Remains Skeptical of the “Cost-Benefit State”
dc.typeText
dc.type.genreArticle (Other)
dc.relation.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6595
dc.ada.noteFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
dc.description.schoolcollegeTemple University. James E. Beasley School of Law
dc.temple.creatorSinden, Amy
refterms.dateFOA2021-06-21T20:33:15Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Sinden-ArticleOther-2016-09.pdf
Size:
269.4Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record