DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: the Need for Law Reform G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: the Need for Law Reform G Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 1976 Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform G. Robert Blakey Notre Dame Law School Michael Goldsmith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation G. R. Blakey & Michael Goldsmith, Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform, 74 Mich. L. Rev. 1511 (1975-1976). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/107 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL REDISTRIBUTION OF STOLEN PROPERTY: THE NEED FOR LAW REFORM G. Robert Blakey and Michael Goldsmith TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THm REALITIES OF MODERN FENCING SYSTEMS ---------- 1523 A. Marketing Theory and the Fence ------------- 1523 B. Patternsof Redistribution .................................- 1528 1. The "Neighborhood Connection"-- 1529 2. The Outlet Fence --------------------- 1531 3. The Professional Fence ------------- 1533 4. The Master Fence -------------- 1535 5. The Role of Organized Crime ------------- 1538 II. SOCIAL CONTROL THROUGH LAW -------------- 1542 A. Criminal Sanctions --------------------- 1542 1. The Development of the Law ------------- 1542 2. Receiving Stolen Property: A Modern Perspective --------------------------- 1545 a. The "receipt" of property -------------- 1545 b. The goods must be stolen -------------- 1551 c. The state of mind requirement ----------- 1558 (i). The appropriatemens rea ----------- 1559 (ii). The availability of direct evidence es- tablishing mens rea --------------- 1562 (iii). The use of circumstantial evidence to establish mens rea ---------------- 1572 (iv). Strict liability ------------------- 1589 (v). Affirmative defense --------------- 1593 3. Sentencing Convicted Receivers ------------ 1597 B. Civil Remedies for Fencing Crimes ------------ 1601 II. CONCLUSION: BASIC TACTICS AND STRATEGY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT -------------- 1611 Appendix A -...----....--------------------............------------------ -1614 A ppendix B - ....................................................... 1620 1511 CRIMINAL REDISTRIBUTION OF STOLEN PROPERTY: THE NEED FOR LAW REFORM G. Robert Blakey* and Michael Goldsmith*t Our society is permeated by a consciousness of theft: triple-locked doors of city apartments,guard dogs prowling stores and warehouses at night, retail prices and insurance rates based on the assumption that large quantities of merchandise are simply going to disappear. But our consciousnessof theft tends to be limited. It is easy to imag- ine the act itself-the forced lock or smashed window in the dead of night, the hijacker ordering the driver out of his truck cab at pistol point. It is harder to keep in mind that these acts aren't random or self-contained but are usually practical ways of acquiring goods for an established buyer. As for the dealer in stolen goods-the "fence"-there our imagination seldom goes beyond the owner of a seedy pawnshop or the characterwho sidles up on the street and mut- ters, "Hey buddy, wanna buy a watch?"1 THE development of sophisticated fencing systems for the sale of stolen property to consumers has paralleled the industrialization of society. Although crimes against property and attempts to con- trol them have ancient origins,2 most theft before the Industrial Revolution was committed for immediate consumption by the thieves and their accomplices rather than for redistribution in the market- place.3 Society's small population, inadequate transportation and * Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and Director of the Cornell Institute on Organized Crime.-Ed. ** Deputy State Attorney, Burlington, Vt. A.B. 1972, J.D. 1975, Cornell Univer- sity.-Ed. t These materials originated in work begun during the processing of S.13, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (1973); S. REP. No. 93-80, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 81 to 0 in 1972 as S.16, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) (118 CONG. REc. 29379 (1972)) and passed again in 1973 by a voice vote (119 CONG. REc. 10319 (1973)). No action was taken in the House Judiciary Committee, "not . [because of] a lack of support for the bill but . [because of] the com- mittee's heavy work load." N.Y. Times, May 5, 1974, at 69, col. 3 (late city ed.). New legislation was not introduced in the 94th Congress. 1. Chasan, Good Fences Make Bad Neighbors, N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1974, § 6 (Magazine), at 12. 2. Biblical tradition has it that disobedience began with God's first command to man. See Genesis 2:16-17, 3:4-6. Laws concerning theft and robbery may be found in many sections of the Old Testament. See, e.g., Exodus 22:1-4; Leviticus 6:1-5, 19:13; Proverbs 29:24. For a discussion of theft in primitive society, see A. DIA- MoND, THE EVOLUnON OF LAW AND ORDER 12, 35, 50-51, 108-15 (1951). 3. "Until the seventeenth century the amount of movable property available for theft and the opportunities to dispose of this property except by personal consumption 1512 August 1976] Criminal Distribution of Stolen Property 1513 communication systems, and technological inability to mass produce identical goods constrained large-scale fencing because there were few buyers and because stolen property could be readily identified.' The unprecedented economic5 and demographic 6 growth in eight- eehth-century Europe, however, removed these practical constraints and made possible the profitable fencing operations7 that are now firmly institutionalized in industrial societies. Although these social and technological developments are impor- tant, they do not provide a complete explanation for the rising theft rate or for the tremendous amount of property successfully redistrib- uted annually." Instead, these problems must be attributed in large part to our society's failure to identify properly the economic rela- tionship underlying theft and redistribution and, consequently, to our inability to develop successful methods of legal control. 9 An understanding of the economic causes of property theft re- quires brief consideration of the relationship between the two major participants in redistribution systems. First, there are the fences who often find it both profitable and not very risky"' to purchase were limited." Chappell & Walsh, "No Questions Asked," A Consideration of the Crime of Criminal Receiving, 20 CIME & DELINQUENCY 157, 160 (1974) [here- inafter Chappell & Walsh, "No Questions Asked"]. 4. Prior to the development of mass production techniques, a fence was faced with "the situation of highly individualized property owned on a limited scale. .. ." Id. at 168. Limited production and limited ownership foreclosed the possibility of fencing stolen goods on a large scale because there were too few buyers, and property could be too readily identified. See generally P. MANToux, THE INDUSTEIAL REVOLU- TION IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 108-12 (rev. ed. 1961). 5. Eighteenth century England experienced an expansion of trade that was of "geometric proportions." J. HALL, THFxr, LA W AND SOCIETY 77 (2d ed. 1952). See P. MANTOIrX, supra note 4, at 99-108. See generally H. BEALEs, THE INDUsTRIAL REVoLUTtoN 1780-1850: AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY 48-56 (1958). 6. See M. FLINN, AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HIsTORY OF BRITAIN, 1066-1939, at 115 (1965) and B. MUPHY, A HisroRY OF THE BRITISH ECONOMY 1086-1970, at 61-62, 100-01, 229-33, 324-34 (1973) (describing dramatic growth of British popula- tion). During this period the world population experienced similar growth. See K. ClEN, WORLD POPULATION GRowTH AND LitiNG STANDARDS 64 (1960). 7. "[fModay's fence . faces an economy in which imperceptibly differing con- sumer goods are mass-produced and mass-owned and for which there seems to be an insatiable desire." Chappel & Walsh, "No Questions Asked," 168. "The relative im- personality of property items, and the lack of adequate identifying marks on most categories of goods, frequently prevents the establishment of a nexus between the fence and stolen property items, or the return of recovered property to its original owner." Chappell & Walsh, Receiving Stolen Property: The Need for Systemic Inquiry into the Fencing Process, 11 CRIMINOLOGY 484, 490 (1974) [hereinafter Chappell & Walsh, Receiving Stolen Property]. 8. See Hearings on Criminal Redistribution (Fencing) Systems Before the Senate Select Comm. on Small Business, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1 (1973) [hereinafter Hearingson Fencing]. 9. See section H infra. 10. See text at notes 22-29 infra. 1514 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 74:1511 stolen goods from thieves and resell them at retail and wholesale levels. Frequently masquerading as legitimate businessmen, 1 so- phisticated fences not only use cheap stolen merchandise to increase their profits and to undercut legitimate competitors,'2 but also operate without much risk of detection since they can easily remove identify- ing labels from the goods, falsify records to hide illegal purchases, or otherwise "legitimize" the goods, and then quickly dispose of them in the marketplace.13 Second, there are the thieves who, with the growth of viable fencing schemes, have available purchasers for their stolen property. Thus, they too can rapidly dispose of the evi- dence of their crimes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Intellectual Property Law
    ee--RRGG Electronic Resource Guide International Intellectual Property Law * Jonathan Franklin This page was last updated February 8, 2013. his electronic resource guide, often called the ERG, has been published online by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) since 1997. T Since then it has been systematically updated and continuously expanded. The chapter format of the ERG is designed to be used by students, teachers, practitioners and researchers as a self-guided tour of relevant, quality, up-to-date online resources covering important areas of international law. The ERG also serves as a ready-made teaching tool at graduate and undergraduate levels. The narrative format of the ERG is complemented and augmented by EISIL (Electronic Information System for International Law), a free online database that organizes and provides links to, and useful information on, web resources from the full spectrum of international law. EISIL's subject-organized format and expert-provided content also enhances its potential as teaching tool. 2 This page was last updated February 8, 2013. I. Introduction II. Overview III. Research Guides and Bibliographies a. International Intellectual Property Law b. International Patent Law i. Public Health and IP ii. Agriculture, Plant Varieties, and IP c. International Copyright Law i. Art, Cultural Property, and IP d. International Trademark Law e. Trade and IP f. Arbitration, Mediation, and IP g. Traditional Knowledge and IP h. Geographical Indications IV. General Search Strategies V. Primary Sources VI. Primary National Legislation and Decisions VII. Recommended Link sites VIII. Selected Non-Governmental Organizations IX. Electronic Current Awareness 3 This page was last updated February 8, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: the Need for Law Reform
    Michigan Law Review Volume 74 Issue 8 1976 Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform G. Robert Blakey Cornell Law School Michael Goldsmith Vermont State Attorneys' Office Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation G. R. Blakey & Michael Goldsmith, Criminal Redistribution of Stolen Property: The Need for Law Reform, 74 MICH. L. REV. 1511 (1976). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol74/iss8/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CRIMINAL REDISTRIBUTION OF STOLEN PROPERTY: THE NEED FOR LAW REFORM G. Robert Blakey and Michael Goldsmith TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE REALITIES OF MODERN FENCING SYSTEMS ___ 1523 A. Marketing Theory and the Fence ______ 1523 B. Patterns of Redistribution _________ 1528 l. The "Neighborhood Connection" _____ 1529 2. The Outlet Fence ______ 1531 3. The Professional Fence ________ 1533 4. The Master Fence __________ 1535 5. The Role of Organz"zed Crime _____ 1538 Il. SoCIAL CONTROL THROUGH LAW ____ 1542 A. Crimz"nal Sanctions _________ 1542 l. The Development of the Law ______ 1542 2. Receiving Stolen Property: A Modern Perspective ______ 1545 a. The "receipt'' of property _____ 1545 b. The goods must be stolen ---------------- 1551 c. The state of mz"nd requz"rement ----------·--------- 1558 (i).
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Room in the Property Canon
    Making Room in the Property Canon INTEGRATING SPACES: PROPERTY LAW AND RACE. By Alfred Brophy, Alberto Lopez & Kali Murray. New York, New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011. 368 pages. $40.00. Reviewed by Bela August Walker* I. Introduction Property is oft considered the province of the antediluvian, far situated from modern concerns, particularly issues of race and diversity. Even more so than other areas of legal academia, Property remains the province of dead white men. Courses and casebooks continue to hark back to Blackstone, the epitome of the antiquated.1 The thread of old English law continues throughout the semester, to the consternation of many a first-year law student. It should come as no surprise that Property is then viewed as lifeless, the course least accessible, least relevant, most obscure. Nonetheless, Blackstone once avowed, “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property . .”2 This adage may prove still true. If property is dead,3 long live Property!4 Integrating Spaces: Property Law and Race takes on one aspect of this potential impasse. Alfred Brophy, Alberto Lopez, and Kali Murray address a long-standing absence and bring the Property casebook into the twenty-first * Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law. For their sage advice and discerning counsel, I am indebted to M.J. Durkee, Sheila Foster, Jack Greenberg, Tanya Hernandez, Sonia Katyal, Jennifer Flynn Walker, and Patricia Williams. 1. Even Integrating Spaces cannot resist beginning its tale with the Englishman’s “‘despotic’ dominion.” ALFRED BROPHY, ALBERTO LOPEZ & KALI MURRAY, INTEGRATING SPACES: PROPERTY LAW AND RACE 3 (2011) [hereinafter INTEGRATING SPACES].
    [Show full text]
  • The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 33 Issue 5 Issue 5 - October 1980 Article 2 10-1980 The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis Kathleen F. Brickey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kathleen F. Brickey, The Jurisprudence of Larceny:An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis, 33 Vanderbilt Law Review 1101 (1980) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol33/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Jurisprudence of Larceny: An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis Kathleen F. Brickey* I. INTRODUCTION The principle of harm is an essential component of criminal jurisprudence.1 It is important as both an element of crime2 and a measure of appropriate punishment.3 In a general sense harm im- plies infringement or destruction of cognizable interests," but the concept must be given more specific content if it is to assume a functional role in the development of coherent theory. As the no- tions of harm and protected interests are interdependent, defini- tion of the harm perceived to result from criminal conduct ulti- mately rests on determination of the legal interest sought to be * Professor of Law, Washington University. A.B., 1965, J.D., 1968, University of Ken- tucky. The author is grateful to Richard H. Helmholz, Professor of Law and Professor of History at Washington University, for his thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • ORT Report Dec 2002
    A Report on Organized Retail Theft Researched and written by: Charles I. Miller, CPP, CSP Food Industry Network P.O. Box 1515 Great Falls, VA 22066 Published by: Loss Prevention Services Department Ó Food Marketing Institute 655 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Copyright Ó 2003, Food Marketing Institute. All Rights Reserved. Foreword This document was prepared to provide local, state and federal legislators and prosecutors, the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies without previous experience in dealing with organized retail theft, a better understanding of retailing’s major criminal problem today – professional shoplifting or organized retail theft. We urge all who read this report to join our efforts to prevent the loss of billions of dollars worth of products and many millions of dollars in tax revenue. Coalition Against Organized Retail Theft Consumer Healthcare Products Association Eastman Kodak Company Food Marketing Institute GlaxoSmithKline Grocery Manufacturers of America International Mass Retail Association International Formula Council National Association of Chain Drug Stores National Association of Convenience Stores National Community Pharmacists Association National Retail Federation Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. i Acknowledgements The writer wishes to thank the following executives for their assistance in researching and developing this report. Leslie K. Bryant Armando Navarro Supervisory Special Agent Security Director Federal Bureau of Investigation Safeway Inc. Louisville, KY Clackamas, OR Doyle Hulse Janet Scott Director of Loss Prevention Investigative Task Force, Farm Fresh, LLC Legislative Team Leader Virginia Beach, VA Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Bentonville, AR Steve King Corporate Director of Claims Kathleen Smith The Kroger Co. Vice President, Corporate Security Cincinnati, OH Safeway Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime Control Commission
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • / J ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL COMMISSION FIRST REPORT II ' ATTORNEY GENERAL EVELLE J. YOUHGER STATE OF CALIFORNIA . [ . ~., MAY 1978 II LD j. I ~B NCJRS OCT !3 1981 ; !.L FIRST REPORT OF THE I ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL COMMISSION U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the officia! position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this e~ material has been granted by Charles E. Casey, Chief/Bureau of Crime and Criminal Intelligence to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis- sion of the ee.l~t owner. s---" EVELLE J. YOUNGER STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY CENEttAL epartment of jju tire 555 CAPITOL MALL. SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO 95814 {916) 445-9555 May 2, i97~ A REPORT TO THEPEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL EVELLE J. YOUNGER Pursuant to my responsibilities under the Constitution as chief law officer of California and my statutory responsibility to control and eradicate organized crime by conducting continuing analyses, research and the publication of reports on organized crime, on July 28, 1977, I established the Organized Crime Control Commission. I directed the Commission to report to me on the nature and scope of organized crime in California, the current efforts by local and state agencies to combat organ- ized crime, and, if appropriate propose recommendations to improve California's capability in combating organized crime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essence of Property Law
    Review: The Essence of Property Law FUNDAMENTALS OF MODERN REAL PROPERTY LAW, 3d Edition. By Edward H. Rabin and Roberta Rosenthal Kwall. New York, New York: Foundation Press, 1992. Pp. xvi, 1092. Reviewed by Vada Waters Lindsey* I. INTRODUCTION I have taught property law for four years and, after considering other casebooks, I have always used Rabin and Kwall's Fundamentals of Modern Real Property Law.1 My initial reason for selecting this casebook had much to do with my comfort level in contacting Professor Kwall to discuss her use of the casebook and course content. She graciously supplied me with several syllabi she had used through- out the years and helped alleviate the anxiety that accompanies new class preparation. In addition, I found Rabin and Kwall's Teacher's Manual to be a useful tool because of its level of detail, including a reference list to scholarly articles analyzing every subject covered in the casebook. When my former Academic Dean asked me to consider teaching Property Law, I agreed to teach the course without hesitation. I was extremely excited to teach a course in property law-not because I would gain a strong understanding of the archaic rule against perpetu- ities, but because of my desire to help the students establish a strong foundation in transactional law. I taught Wills and Estates during my first semester of law school teaching, which was when the dean approached me regarding teaching Property. I was more than a little frustrated that students lacked a basic understanding of some funda- mental property law concepts, such as the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule of Reason in Property Law
    The Rule of Reason in Property Law Joseph William Singer* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. RULES AND STANDARDS .......................................................... 1375 A. Conventional Analysis ..................................................... 1375 B. Legal Realism About Rules and Standards in Property Law ................................................................................. 1380 1. Why Rules Are Less Predictable than We Think ..... 1380 a. Informal Sources of Justified Expectations ............ 1380 b. Rules Do Not Determine Their Own Scope ........... 1383 c. Competing Norms Limit the Scope of Legal Rules .. 1385 * Copyright © 2013 Joseph William Singer. Bussey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Thanks and affection go to Martha Minow, Mira Singer, Lila Singer, Greg Alexander, Jane Baron, Bethany Berger, Eric Claeys, Hanoch Dagan, Nestor Davidson, Annie Decker, Rashmi Dyal-Chand, Mark Edwards, Kent Greenfield, Michael Kenneally, Gil Lan, Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir, John Lovett, Hari Osofsky, Eduardo Peñalver, Stewart Sterk, Laura Underkuffler, André van der Walt, and Johan van der Walt. I would also like to thank all the participants in the Progressive Property Conference held at Harvard Law School in May 2012 and the Property Works in Progress Conference held at Fordham Law School also in May 2012. 1369 1370 University of California, Davis [Vol. 46:1369 2. Why Standards Are More Predictable than We Think ........................................................................ 1387 a. Exemplars and Precedent Make Standards
    [Show full text]
  • Goldstein, Paul
    Paul Goldstein Lillick Professor of Law Stanford Law School Stanford, CA 94305 18 November 2015 David Kully Chief, Litigation III Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 450 5th Street NW, Suite 4000 Washington, DC 20001 [email protected] Dear Mr. Kully: I am writing to you at the request ofthe National Music Publishers' Association ("NMPA") in connection with the Department ofJustice, Antitrust Division's request for comments on PRO licensing ofjointly owned works. By way of background, I have been Professor of Law (1975-1985) and since 1985 the Lillick Professor ofLaw at Stanford Law School, where I regularly teach courses in U.S., foreign and international copyright law. I have also since 1988 been Of Counsel to the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP. I am sole author ofthe four-volume treatise, Goldstein on Copyright, (Aspen Publishers 3rd ed. 2005) updated semi-annually, and co-author with Bernt Hugenholtz of the one-volume treatise, International Copyright (Oxford University Press 3rd ed. 2013), as well as of law school casebooks on U.S. and international intellectual property law. A copy of my resume is enclosed. -1- The NMPA has asked me to provide my opinion on the following questions: 1. Do the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. ("Copyright Act"), and judicial decisions under the Copyright Act, permit the co-owner of a jointly-authored work to include in its license ofthe work to a third party a condition that, before exploiting the work, the licensee first secure a license from the other co-owner or co-owners of copyright in the work? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine Or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 7 | Issue 1 Article 8 1978 Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Relic? Margot Rau Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Recommended Citation Rau, Margot (1978) "Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Relic?," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol7/iss1/8 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rau: Covenants Running with the Land: Viable Doctrine or Common-Law Re NOTES COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND: VIABLE DOCTRINE OR COMMON-LAW RELIC?* Prominent legal scholars have questioned their fascination with the common-law doctrine of "covenants running with the land."' Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked that recalling his former in- terest in the subject gave him "a spell of the dry grins." 2 Judge Charles Clark doubted that this "narrow corner of the law" de- served to have any "more good white paper" devoted to it.3 Notwithstanding the ambivalence of Justice Holmes and Judge Clark, this complex doctrine persists. Confusion and uncertainty pervade reported decisions, as courts continue to apply this relic of the days of inflexible common-law rules. Judge Clark made a comprehensive study of covenants running with the land, based on case law through the 1940's. 4 He clarified much of the confusion surrounding the doctrine, and made sugges- tions for its proper judicial use.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines
    TEXAS PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PRESERVATION ACT GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act 1.11. Purpose 1.12. Texas Attorney General Guidelines 1.13. Takings Impact Assessment Requirement (“TIA”) 1.2. Takings 1.21. What are takings? 1.22. Property Rights Act Definition of “Taking” 1.23. Incorporated Constitutional Definitions of “Taking” 1.24. “Regulatory Takings” or “Inverse Condemnation” Takings 1.3. Constitutional Regulatory Takings Analysis 1.31. Introduction 1.32. Federal Law 1.33. State Law 2. Applicability 2.1. Governmental Actions Covered and Exempted 2.11. Actions Covered 2.12. Actions Exempted 2.2. Takings Impact Assessment Procedures 3. Guide to Promulgating Takings Impact Assessments 3.1. Requirements for Promulgating Takings Impact Assessments 3.2. Guide to Evaluating Proposed Governmental Actions 3.21. Burden Analysis 3.22. Takings Impact Analysis Endnotes 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act 1.11. Purpose “The Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act,” Texas Government Code chapter 2007 (the Property Rights Act), represents a basic charter for the protection of private real property rights in Texas. 1 The Property Rights Act is the Legislature’s acknowledgment of the importance of protecting private real property interests in Texas. The purpose of the act is to ensure that certain governmental entities2 make a careful evaluation of their actions regarding private real property rights, and that those entities act according to the letter and spirit of the Property Rights Act. In short, the Property Rights Act is another instrument to ensure open and responsible government for Texans.
    [Show full text]