Search

This article aims to challenge the clear distinction between the diffuse ownership structure--which exists in England and the United States--and the concentrated ownership structure which exists in the rest of the world. A study of the economic and legal reality of Anglo-American law and Continental law shows that the traditional ownership structures in both legal systems have significantly weakened. I discuss the normative implications of the decreasing concentrated ownership structure and argue that the current corporate governance rules are outdated because the distinction between diffuse and concentrated ownership structures is no longer valid. In particular, I propose that the rules of corporate governance in markets with concentrated ownership structure should be redesigned to represent the new balance of power between the controlling shareholder and the minority shareholders through an innovative model that I call the Relative Corporate Governance Regime. This model suggests rearticulating corporate law and governance in a manner that considers the ratio of holdings between the controlling shareholder and the minority shareholders; the size and scope of the company's activity; the activity that the company is engaged in; and its consequences for the market's overall financial stability. For many years, lawmakers, courts and jurists have been debating how to protect the rights of minority shareholders in transactions involving controlling shareholders. In this paper, I show how the Relative Corporate Governance Regime model contributes to the choice between protecting the rights of minority shareholders through a property or liability rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The animal rights movement largely focuses on protecting species whose suffering is most visible to humans, such as pets, livestock, and captive mammals. Yet, we do not observe how unsustainable land development and fishing practices are harming many species of wildlife and sea creatures. Fish and wildlife populations have recently suffered staggering losses, and they stand to lose far more. This Article proposes a new legal approach to protect these currently overlooked creatures. I suggest extending property rights to animals, which would allow them to own land, water, and natural resources. Human trustees would manage animal-owned trusts managed at the ecosystem level--a structure that fits within existing legal institutions. Although admittedly radical, an animal property rights regime would create tremendous gains for imperiled species with relatively few costs to humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides background on some of the regulations that significantly interfere with property owners' ability to use their property to the fullest extent possible within the new economy. It further discusses potential challenges to the regulations that fail to protect homeowners from strict regulatory schemes.

The twin notions of exclusion and possession dominate our cultural and legal conceptions of property. This Article uses the lens of hedonics--the emergent science of happiness--to make a case for the less appreciated notions of inclusion and dispossession. Evidence from this new field shows that owners maximize their welfare, not when they amass land and chattels and keep others away from them, but when they pursue the polaropposite strategies of inclusion and dispossession, such as sharing their property, donating it to charity, or giving it away. This Article begins its defense of inclusion and dispossession by providing background about the idea of happiness and law, an increasingly important conceptual framework for welfarist analysis of law and policy. It then reviews the hedonics evidence about property, which reveals that despite the hegemony of exclusion and possession, what increases owners' subjective well-being is using their property to create social ties, to give it to a meaningful cause, or just to get rid of it. The Article then considers specific strategies of inclusion and dispossession. The Article reveals unappreciated ways that inclusion and dispossession enhance owners' subjective well-being, and then suggests particular forms of choice architecture that have the potential to optimize the overall social welfare produced by each of them. Finally, this Article concludes by considering the implications for property theory of the novel notions of inclusion and dispossession, emphasizing that this claim works to enrich, not undermine, the institution of private ownership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critiques our focus on possession as the cornerstone of theories of property, examining the limitations of possession both as a theoretical concept and as a practical one. Second, the article examines how an investment-based labor approach has sharply shaped our understandings of possession. By examining the intertwining of possession and labor during colonization, the article describes how the labor approach to possession excluded more communal corollaries and instilled in American property law a consistent push toward grounding land claims at the labor-possession nexus. Re-thinking the labor-possession nexus yields important shifts. First, labor matters for reasons other than investment-backed expectations. Labor matters because the loss of investments often means violence. There is a reason for the historical correlation between changes in property rights and revolutions. Focusing investment critically places property as a first-order value when it is, in fact, a second-order value or a means to a social end (specifically, non-violence). Second, focusing on labor as investment also places such an extraordinary emphasis on possession that American scholars and courts rarely think much about dispossession. Our emphasis on possession rather than dispossession frames American property law in terms of vested rights to such a degree that while scholars may think in terms of social relations theories, American property law is stuck thinking in terms of individual ownership rights even when the courts acknowledge the social nature of property arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the civil property-related disputes during U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts tenure. Topics discussed include constitutional and statutory protections afforded to owners of the property; analysis of civil property-related disputes between property owners and government entities involving criminal law; and the way Roberts Court has reshaped the Court's approach to property law mainly focusing on civil cases that involve constitutional issues.

The author argues on the need of implementing reforms in civil forfeiture in the U.S. Topics discussed include legal and Biblical religious history behind the origin of civil forfeiture, significance of forfeiture as an action filed directly against property under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), and the role of CAFRA along with burden of proof in enhancing law enforcement for civil forfeiture.

The maritime historian working as litigation support and expert witness faces many challenges, including identifying and analyzing case law associated with admiralty subjects, cultural resource management law, and general historical topics. The importance of the unique knowledge of the historian in the maritime context is demonstrated by a case study of attempts to salvage the shipwreck Atlantic, the remains of a merchant vessel built and enrolled in the United States and lost in the Canadian waters of Lake Erie in 1852. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article considers the weight of extramarital relationships in determining the distribution of family property. Under the U.S. legal system, opinions differ as to whether this fault should be a factor in distribution of family property. The controversy is influenced by and arises from an earlier disagreement that followed the "no-fault" revolution of the 1970s, which focused on the role of fault in divorce proceedings. The discussion of fault with regard to property distribution took place without in-depth consideration of the underlying basis and rationales for the principles of joint property and, even more importantly, without relating to their modern, theoretical and current bases. This Article fills this void, clarifies the modern bases for the principles of joint property, and, through them, sheds new light on the role of fault. This analysis produces a new model for examining the relevance of fault in property distribution. In order to clearly and precisely focus on the theoretical rationales for joint family property and the establishment of a new model, this Article also examines the Israeli legal system. At the end of the 1970s, one court decision determined, without explanation, that extramarital relationships are not a relevant consideration in property distribution. Subsequent rulings cited this decision without further discussion. This Article seeks to bridge the gap in the Israeli legal system as well. For that purpose, the Article analyzes the theoretical bases of property distribution principles under both Israeli law and Jewish religious law, including the ways in which these legal systems each relate to extramarital relationships. This Article questions whether the strong position of the Israeli court is consistent with the modern theoretical bases for joint property. These doubts are strengthened by the fact that there is no other practical way to compensate one spouse who has been harmed by the extramarital relationship of the other spouse. Developments and new approaches in family law that are relevant to our discussion include matters such as: divorce without fault but by demand - a relationship terminable at-will; removal of fault as a relevant factor in divorce proceedings; modern theoretical bases for joint property such as the values of labor, reward for work, morality and equality; societal perceptions of the family unit; the realization that the no-fault divorce revolution was detrimental to the family unit; disappointment in tort law as a means for responding to harm resulting from extramarital relationships, and more. In light of these developments, a need has emerged to renew the balance among the relevant values and to offer a new model for weighing fault in family property distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the evolution of human rights litigation in relation to structural reform strategies at international human rights courts. Democracies and transitional states are mentioned, along with legal remedies such as monetary compensation for victims of human rights violations. National courts are addressed, along with examinations of several property- and procedure-related legal cases. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is assessed, as well as U.S. constitutional law.

The article offers information on the judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the case of In re City of New York regarding the use of the Takings clause in acquisition of the private property for public use by the government under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It informs that the plaintiffs Lawrence and Liana Paolella claimed for just compensation against the New York City government's acquisition of their wetlands under their due process rights.

The article offers information on the significance of the judicial interpretations of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which promotes property rights and fairness and plays a significant role in the development of property law and land use planning and controls in the U.S. It discusses the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in cases Penn Central Transportation Co. and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council regarding the taking claim against violation of private property rights.

The article presents several articles related to the application of the public trust doctrine in the U.S. property and environmental law. It informs that articles are based on the infrastructure leases, natural gas drilling arrangements, and wind farm development of and on public lands. It explores the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois.

The article discusses the denial of Minnesota Supreme Court, in the case Walsh v. U.S. Bank NA, to follow plausibility pleading standard for civil actions introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Topics include notice pleading under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure; and the decision held by Minnesota Supreme Court in the case Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes related to land dispute between property owners and the city of Fifty Lakes.