Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
However, in the United Kingdom, the significance of the royal lives clause may have diminished as a result of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, a legal act that reformed the rules against perpetuities in the country. [1] Similar reforms were also made in several Australian states and the Canadian province of British Columbia. [2]
The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (c. 18) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reforms the rule against perpetuities. The Act resulted from a Law Commission report published in 1998. [3] It abolishes the rule against perpetuities in most non-trust contexts, such as easements. [3]
The Rule in Shelley's Case is a rule of law that may apply to certain future interests in real property and trusts created in common law jurisdictions. [1]: 181 It was applied as early as 1366 in The Provost of Beverly's Case [1]: 182 [2] but in its present form is derived from Shelley's Case (1581), [3] in which counsel stated the rule as follows:
The reforms introduced a statutory limitation on how long income could be accumulated before it must be distributed. In 2009, many of the Act's principles were further reformed by the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009, which introduced a single, simplified perpetuity period of 125 years, replacing the earlier rules. [1]
"California has offered no justification that the notice plausibly furthers. It targets speakers, not speech, and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their ...
Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral is an article in the scholarly legal literature (Harvard Law Review, Vol.85, p. 1089, April 1972), authored by Judge Guido Calabresi (of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) and A. Douglas Melamed, currently a professor at Stanford Law School ...
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a California woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way ...