Description
Book SynopsisThis important research review considers the seminal legal articles in property law and its subtopics published during the 20th and 21st centuries. The coverage is broad, as comprehensive as possible, ranging from theoretical to practical and doctrinal. The authors of the pieces under discussion are primarily American and all stand as leading figures in their respective fields. The text places its focus on topics of current interest, including economic and non-economic theories of property, the takings problem, and the reform of the law of land-use servitudes.
Trade Review‘Property is one of the most essential - and most misunderstood - concepts. The law of property is complex because the institution of private property fills a wide variety of functions, from providing security and autonomy to generating social welfare to supporting democratic political institutions. Understanding property is immeasurably enhanced by looking at it from a variety of normative perspectives and understanding how it has changed over time. These volumes address key issues by explaining debates among important theorists, all of whom have insights worth studying. The authors collected here have each put their mark on the field, and the editors have skillfully framed the fruitful debates they generated. A must-have compendium.’ -- Joseph William Singer, Harvard Law School, US
Table of ContentsContents: Volume I Acknowledgements vii Introduction Gregory S. Alexander ix PART I CONCEPTUAL MATTERS: STRUCTURING OWNERSHIP 1. William Blackstone (1979 [1765–1769]), ‘The Rights’ in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2 2 2. Wesley N. Hohfeld (1917), ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal, 26 (8), June, 710–70 3 3. A.M. Honoré (1961), ‘Ownership’, in A.G. Guest (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence: A Collaborative Work, Chapter V, Oxford, UK and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 107–47 64 4. Thomas C. Grey (1980), ‘The Disintegration of Property’, in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds), Nomos XXII: Property, New York, NY, USA: New York University Press, 69–85 105 5. Henry E. Smith (2012), ‘Property as the Law of Things’, Harvard Law Review, 125 (7), May, 1691–726 122 PART II THE OBJECTS OF PROPERTY 6. Charles A. Reich (1964), ‘The New Property’, Yale Law Journal, 73 (5), April, 733–87 159 7. Margaret Jane Radin (1987), ‘Market-Inalienability’, Harvard Law Review, 100 (8), June, 1849–937 214 8. Cheryl I. Harris (1993), ‘Whiteness as Property’, Harvard Law Review, 106 (8), June, 1707–91 303 9. Joseph William Singer (1988), ‘The Reliance Interest in Property’, Stanford Law Review, 40 (3), February, 611–751 388 10. Sarah Harding (1999), ‘Value, Obligation and Cultural Heritage’, Arizona State Law Journal, 31 (2), February, 291–354 529 PART III RULES VERSUS STANDARDS IN PROPERTY LAW 11. Carol M. Rose (1988), ‘Crystals and Mud in Property Law’, Stanford Law Review, 40 (3), February, 577–610 594 12. Henry E. Smith (2009), ‘Mind the Gap: The Indirect Relation Between Ends and Means in American Property Law’, Cornell Law Review , 94 (4), May, 959–89 628 13. Gregory S. Alexander and Eduardo M. Peñalver (2012), ‘The Right to Exclude and its Limits’, in (eds) An Introduction to Property Theory , Chapter 7, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 130–55 659 PART IV THE ECONOMIC APPROACH TO PROPERTY 14. Harold Demsetz (1967), ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’, American Economic Review , 57 (2), May, 347–59 686 15. Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed (1972), ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral’, Harvard Law Review , 85 (6), April, 1089–128 699 16. Robert C. Ellickson (1986), ‘Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County’, Stanford Law Review , 38 (3), February, 623–87 739 PART V NON-ECONOMIC THEORIES OF PROPERTY 17. Margaret Jane Radin (1982), ‘Property and Personhood’, Stanford Law Review , 34 (5), May, 957–1015 805 18. Gregory S. Alexander (2009), ‘The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law’, Cornell Law Review , 94 (4), May, 745–819 864 Volume II Acknowledgements vii Introduction: An Introduction by the editor appears in Volume I PART I THE NUMERUS CLAUSUS QUESTION 1. Thomas W. Merrill and Henry E. Smith (2000), ‘Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle’, Yale Law Journal, 110 (1), October, 1–70 2 2. Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman (2002), ‘Property, Contract, and Verification: The Numerus Clausus Problem and the Divisibility of Rights’, Journal of Legal Studies, 31 (S2), June, S373–S420 72 PART II COMMONS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS 3. Michael A. Heller (1998), ‘The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets’, Harvard Law Review, 111 (3), January, 621–88 121 4. James E. Krier (1992), ‘The Tragedy of the Commons, Part Two’, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15 (2), Spring, 325–47 189 PART III ESTATES IN LAND AND FUTURE INTERESTS 5. T.P. Gallanis (2003), ‘The Future of Future Interests’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 60 (2), Spring, 513–75 213 6. W. Barton Leach (1938), ‘Perpetuities in a Nutshell’, Harvard Law Review, 51 (4), February, 638–71 276 7. Lawrence W. Waggoner (1985), ‘Perpetuities: A Perspective on Wait-and-See’, Columbia Law Review, 85 (8), December, 1714–29 310 PART IV LANDLORD/TENANT RELATIONS 8. Mary Ann Glendon (1982), ‘The Transformation of American Landlord–Tenant Law’, Boston College Law Review, 23 (3), May, 503–76 327 9. Duncan Kennedy (1987), ‘The Effect of the Warranty of Habitability on Low Income Housing: “Milking” and Class Violence’, Florida State University Law Review, 15 (3), Fall, 485–519 401 PART V SERVITUDES 10. Gerald Korngold (1988), ‘For Unifying Servitudes and Defeasible Fees: Property Law’s Functional Equivalents’, Texas Law Review, 66 (3), February, 533–76 437 11. Susan F. French (1982), ‘Toward a Modern Law of Servitudes: Reweaving the Ancient Strands’, Southern California Law Review, 55 (6), September, 1261–319 481 PART VI ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 12. Robert C. Ellickson (1973), ‘Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls’, University of Chicago Law Review, 40 (4), Summer, 681–781 541 13. Carol M. Rose (1983), ‘Planning and Dealing: Piecemeal Land Controls as a Problem of Local Legitimacy’, California Law Review, 71 (3), May, 837–912 642 PART VII CONSTITUTION PROTECTION OF PROPERTY: THE TAKINGS ISSUE 14. Frank I. Michelman (1967), ‘Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation” Law’, Harvard Law Review, 80 (6), April, 1165–258 719 15. Thomas W. Merrill (1986), ‘The Economics of Public Use’, Cornell Law Review, 72 (1), November, 61–116 813 16. Hanoch Dagan (1999), ‘Takings and Distributive Justice’, Virginia Law Review, 85 (5), August, 741–804 869
