《大学专业英语系列教材:法学专业英语教程(第3版)(下)》**具有大学英语四级水平的法律专业学生使用的英语教材。它较全面系统地介绍美国民商法的基本情况,又提供了案例阅读,形成了一本精泛读相结合、配有各种口笔头练习的易于操作的全新的法学英语学习体系。使用本教材的学生在循序渐进提高英语水平的同时,可了解美国法律的概貌,掌握各种法律概念的英语表述。正因为此,它自1999年问世以来颇受广大师生的好评。 法学专业英语教程-(第三版.下)_赵建,夏国佐_中国人民大学出版社_

Unit Four Negotiable Instrumennts and Secured Transaction
Lesson One Commeraal Paper and the Concept of Holder in Due Course
Lesson Two Check Collection and Allocation of Liability
Lesson Three The Bank and Its Customer: Rights, Duties and Liabilities
Lesson Four Secured Transactions
Cases for Supplementary Reading
(1) Bank of Miami v.Florida City Express, Inc.(1979)
(2) MidWisconsin Bank v.Forsgard Trading, Inc.(2003)
(3) Wachovia Bank, N.A.v.Federal Reserve Bank (2003)
(4) Yacht Club Sales v.First Nat.Bank of North Idaho (1980)
(5) Charles Ragusa & Son v.Community State Bank (1978)
(6) Greenberg, Trager & Herbst v.HSBC Bank USA and Citibank (2011)
(7) H.Schultz & Sons, Inc.v.Bank of Suffolk County (1977)
(8) Gibbs v.King (1978)
(9) Chapman Parts Warehouse, Inc.v.Guderian (1980)
Unit Five The Law of Property
Lesson One Property: Real and Personal
Lesson Two Transfer of Real Property
Lesson Three Real Estate Brokers and the Law of Agency
Lesson Four Intellectual Property
Cases for Supplementary Reading
(1) United States v.Causby (1946)
(2) Susette Kelo v.City of New London, Connecticut (2005)
(3) State of New Jersey v.Shack and Tejeras (1971)
(4) Baker v.Weedon (1972)
(5) First Federal Savings & Loan Assn.of Miami v.Fisher (1952)
(6) Gerruth Realty Co.v.Pire (1962)
(7) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v.Grokster, Ltd.(2005)
(8) Mayo Collaborative Services v.Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.(2012)
(9) The People v.Levy (2010)
Unit Six Tort Law
Lesson One Introduction to Tort Law
Lesson Two Intentional Torts
Lesson Three Negligence
Lesson Four Liability Without Fault and Products Liability
Cases for Supplementary Reading
(1) Bonkowski v.Arlan's Department Store ( 1968)
(2) Hackbart v.Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.( 1979)
……
Unit Seven Business Associations
Unit Eight Corporate Law
Appendix Ⅰ Key to Exercises
Appendix Ⅱ Text Translation

Since the United States began operations in May, 1942, its four-motored heavy bombers, other planes of the heavier type, and its fighter planes have frequently passed over respondents' land and buildings in considerable numbers and rather close together.
They come close enough at times to appear barely to miss the tops of the trees and at times so close to the tops of the trees as to blow the old leaves off. The noise is startling. As a re- sult of the noise, respondents had to give up their chicken business. As many as six to ten of their chickens were killed in one day by flying into the walls from fright. The total chickens lost in that manner was about 150. Production also fell off. The result was the de-struction of the use of the property as a commercial chicken farm. Respondents are fre- quently deprived of their sleep and the family has become nervous and frightened. ... These are the essential facts found by the Court of Claims. On the basis of these facts, it found that respondents' property had depreciated in value. It held that the United States had taken an easement over the property on June 1, 1942 , and that the value of the propertydestroyed and the easement taken was $ 2,000* ...
It is anaent doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the pe- riphery 0f the universe.*. But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into pri- vate ownership that to which only the public has a just claim……
We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the land- owner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immedi- ate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The prinaple is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense-by the erection of buildings and the like-is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation 0f the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. We would not doubt that if the United States erected an elevated railway over respondents' land at the precise ahtitude where its planes now fly, there would be a partial taking, even though none of the supports of the structure rested on the land. The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it.
……