Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
emilybeth
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:04 pm

Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?

Postby emilybeth » Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:30 pm

does anyone know the name of the property case where the court's opinion basically admits it has no idea how to figure out the rule against perpetuities?

User avatar
tea_drinker
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?

Postby tea_drinker » Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:59 am

I think your post's in the wrong forum.

User avatar
180orbust
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:45 pm

Re: Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?

Postby 180orbust » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:40 am

There's a footnote to it in one of the RAP cases in Dukeminier. Don't have it in front of me; hope that helps.

RAP isn't that confusing once you understand its purpose and compare it to what's happening in South Dakota. Its just a way to limit dead-hand control.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:10 pm

If you're still looking, you could try Lucas v. Hamm, where a lawyer was cleared of malpractice claims because the court ruled an ordinary lawyer couldn't be expected to apply the RAP correctly.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest