Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing? Forum

emilybeth · Post by **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?

tea_drinker · Post by **tea_drinker** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:59 am

I think your post's in the wrong forum.

180orbust · Post by **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.

JusticeHarlan · Post by **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.

Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing? Forum

Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?

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

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

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

Register now to search topics and post comments!