Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Arkansas Airspace Ownership And The Challenge Of Drones, Lindsey P. Gustafson
Arkansas Airspace Ownership And The Challenge Of Drones, Lindsey P. Gustafson
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Contract And Property Law—Fee-Shifting Statutes And Landlord-Tenant Law—A Call For The Repeal Of The English Rule "Loser Pays" System Regarding Contract Disputes And Its Effect On Low-Income Arkansas Tenants, Stephanie Mantell
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
With All My Worldly Goods I Thee Endow: The Law And Statistics Of Dower And Curtesy In Arkansas, J. Cliff Mckinney
With All My Worldly Goods I Thee Endow: The Law And Statistics Of Dower And Curtesy In Arkansas, J. Cliff Mckinney
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arkansas’S Trust Code And Trust Planning: A Ten-Year Perspective, Lynn Foster
Arkansas’S Trust Code And Trust Planning: A Ten-Year Perspective, Lynn Foster
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
In 2001, the Uniform Law Commission adopted the Uniform Trust Code, which regulates certain aspects of trusts. One impetus for the trust code was the ever-increasing popularity of revocable trusts as part of standard estate planning packages. Another was the fact that few states—including Arkansas—had well-developed common law trust rules, let alone any statutory trust codes. In 2005, the Arkansas legislature enacted a slightly modified version of the Uniform Trust Code (UTC), titled the Arkansas Trust Code (ATC). At that time, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review published my article summarizing the most important features of the …
Property Law—Upending The Familiar Tools Of Estate Planning: Equity Renders Revocable Trusts Subject To The Arkansas Spousal Election. In Re Estate Of Thompson, 2014 Ark. 237, 434 S.W.3d 877., Lucy L. Holifield
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fifty-One Flowers: Post-Perpetuities War Law And Arkansas' Adoption Of Usrp, Lynn Foster
Fifty-One Flowers: Post-Perpetuities War Law And Arkansas' Adoption Of Usrp, Lynn Foster
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
This article traces the Rules Against Perpetuities' history, from its creation until the present, and discusses the reasons both for its existence and its decline, along with the rise of perpetual trusts. The article also provides the current status of the Rule in the states, which has continued to evolve. Part III of this article explains how the common law Rule works, and it discusses pre-Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (USRAP) perpetuities law in Arkansas. Arkansas's constitution forbids perpetuities.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has interpreted this constitutional provision to mean that the common law Rule is law in Arkansas. Nonetheless, …
Property—Court Of Equity Has The Power To Order A Sale For Reinvestment Even Though No Member Of The Class Having A Contingent Future Interest Is Yet In Existence, William A. Waddell Jr.
Property—Court Of Equity Has The Power To Order A Sale For Reinvestment Even Though No Member Of The Class Having A Contingent Future Interest Is Yet In Existence, William A. Waddell Jr.
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Real Property - General Mineral Reservation In Deed - Lack Of Knowledge That Substance Is A Mineral, G. B. Myers
Real Property - General Mineral Reservation In Deed - Lack Of Knowledge That Substance Is A Mineral, G. B. Myers
Michigan Law Review
In 1892 plaintiff's predecessor in title contracted to convey certain land to defendant, subject to a reservation of "all coal and mineral deposits in and upon said lands," and in 1896 he executed a deed to defendant containing the same reservation. Plaintiff, in 1947, filed a bill to quiet title to bauxite deposits on the land. Held, bill dismissed. Bauxite, not being generally regarded as a mineral at the time of conveyance, was not intended to be within the operation of the mineral reservation. Carson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 212 Ark. 963, 209 S.W. (2d) 97 (1948).
Eshheat-Bona Vacantia-Right Of State To Claim Unclaimed Royalty Payments Of A Corporation, N. S. Peterman
Eshheat-Bona Vacantia-Right Of State To Claim Unclaimed Royalty Payments Of A Corporation, N. S. Peterman
Michigan Law Review
The State of Arkansas brought suit against defendant to recover "various moneys, rents, royalties, credits, and other personal property, which had been unclaimed, forgotten, abandoned, or otherwise lost by-various persons," and which were allegedly in the possession of defendant. The state, not knowing who the previous owners were, submitted interrogatories to defendant which were designed to discover exactly what was in defendant's possession, and who had been the last known owners thereof. The state based its claim on the statutes and on the common law doctrine of bona vacantia. Defendant's demurrer was sustained. On appeal, held, affirmed. The state …
Future Interests-Remainder To A Class As A Vested Remainder
Future Interests-Remainder To A Class As A Vested Remainder
Michigan Law Review
Testator left to his daughter certain real estate "as her sole and separate property during her natural life and at her death to her children absolutely." One of the children mortgaged his interest in the remainder to plaintiff and died, the life tenant surviving him; and thereafter the plaintiff brought suit for foreclosure. Held, this was a remainder to uncertain persons which did not vest in anyone during the life of the life tenant; and therefore the mortgage was a nullity. Deener v. Watkins, 191 Ark. 776, 87 S. W. (2d) 994 (1935).
Specific Performance-Failure Of Vendor's Title
Specific Performance-Failure Of Vendor's Title
Michigan Law Review
The defendant leased his ice plant to the plaintiff with an option to purchase at a certain price and to pay an additional $50 in ice at the market price for the "east 15 ft. of lot 4." The plaintiff exercised the option and performed all the conditions. The defendant failed to execute a deed to the "east 15 ft. of lot 4," claiming that he did not own it, although he had accepted part of the purchase price for the parceI not owned and it was necessary for the operation of the ice plant. In an action for specific …