Page 1 of 1
Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:30 pm
by emilybeth
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?
Re: Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:59 am
by tea_drinker
I think your post's in the wrong forum.
Re: Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:40 am
by 180orbust
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.
Re: Opinion where court admits the RAP is way confusing?
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:10 pm
by JusticeHarlan
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.