English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The legal maxim Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is not a phrase in constant use among attorneys whose practice is concerned with federal regulatory agencies. The forms of conduct with which federal regulatory statutes are concerned are much more amenable to flat "thou shalt nots" than to prohibitions hinging upon a state of mind. Horizontal mergers, for example, may or may not violate the anti-trust laws, but their illegality is not dependent upon the motives of their promoters. The absence of any necessity for proof of motive in such prohibitions is probably fortunate for all concerned. Introducing such an element-whether it be called motive, intent, scienter, malice, or that old, odd complex, mens rea-into either a criminal or civil offense places an onerous burden on the adjudicatory system-examination of the mind of the actor as well as the more easily ascertainable effects of his actions. It is, therefore, both curious and significant that motive and intent (if not, indeed, a form of mens rea) have, over the past two decades, assumed a growing and increasingly troublesome role in the adjudication of cases arising under one of the most important of the federal regula-

Motive and Intent in the Commission of Unfair Labor Practices: The Supreme Court and the Fictive Formality