Comments for Property

Comment on A Practitioner’s Guide to Addressing Rural Blight by Read More Here

Read More Here — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 05:48:50 +0000

What i do not understood is actually how you are not really a lot more well-favored than you may be right now. You are so intelligent. You recognize therefore considerably on the subject of this matter, produced me in my opinion believe it from so many various angles. Its like men and women are not involved until it is one thing to do with Girl gaga! Your own stuffs excellent. At all times maintain it up!

Comment on The Case for NIL as Property by Tim McFarlin

Tim McFarlin — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 15:46:47 +0000

Excellent write-up, Keith — it’s inspired me to share Prof. Crusto’s work with a student working on a paper in this area in my seminar course!

Comment on Rethinking the Role and Values of Monuments by Susan S Harmon, Esq.

Susan S Harmon, Esq. — Tue, 05 Apr 2022 15:38:59 +0000

thank you for your thought-provoking, inspiring article review.

Comment on Honor Among Thieves: US Property Law, Conquest, and Slavery by Emma Jordan

Emma Jordan — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 19:22:15 +0000

K-Sue Park’s robust intellectual reconfiguration of the labor theory and the “first in time” rules reveal the racial violence that underlies our property law.

Her work creates a powerful new foundation for conceptualizing property law. This is true genius.

Comment on Honor Among Thieves: US Property Law, Conquest, and Slavery by ‘Honor Among Thieves: US Property Law, Conquest, and Slavery’ | Private Law Theory - Obligations, property, legal theory

Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:00:28 +0000

[…] K-Sue Park, ‘The History Wars and Property Law: Conquest and Slavery as Foundational to the Field’, 131 Yale Law Journal (forthcoming), available at SSRN. In the most powerful and important article I have read in years, ‘The History Wars and Property Law: Conquest and Slavery as Foundational to the Field’, Professor K-Sue Park blows the cover off American property law to show the central role played by historic expropriation and commodification of Native lands and Black persons. Conquest of land and enslavement of people make up a small or nonexistent part of most first-year property law courses. But without these two organizing principles, the property course in US law schools seems disjointed and oddly Anglicized. Professor Park explains this lack of cohesion as resulting from persistent erasure of two of US property law’s most foundational aspects: conquest and slavery …” (more) […]

Comment on Hidden Resources by ‘Hidden Resources’ | Private Law Theory - Obligations, property, legal theory

Sat, 18 Dec 2021 09:01:10 +0000

[…] Monika Ehrman, ‘Application of Natural Resources Property Theory to Hidden Resources’, 14 International Journal of the Commons 627 (2020). Property law scholarship is often framed in resource-agnostic terms. The field of Property is concerned, fundamentally of course, with governing ‘things’. But the conceptual or theoretical frameworks often assume they can apply equally to any and all resources. Monika Ehrman challenges this notion in her recent work, ‘Application of Natural Resources Property Theory to Hidden Resources’. The key contribution of her article is in underscoring just how important the visibility of a resource (or actually, lack thereof) can be to the formation of property … (more) […]

Comment on The Dream of Property Professors by ‘The Dream of Property Professors’ | Private Law Theory - Obligations, property, legal theory

Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:01:13 +0000

[…] Michael Heller and James Salzman, Mine! How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives (2021). Michael Heller and James Salzman’s new book, Mine! How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives, is a dream come true for property professors. I suspect that many of us have moments when we think to ourselves, ‘wow, this stuff is really interesting’, imagining that property law could somehow be of general interest. Too often that dream is killed when the eyes of non-lawyers, including family members, start to glaze over when they hear words like rule against perpetuities or trademark. Heller and Salzman have succeeded in making the stories property professors tell the stuff of a bestseller. They retell many of the standard classroom or analytical stories in a way that is both interesting to the general public and somehow worthy of broad discussion … (more) […]

Comment on Rethinking the Fee Simple in Rural America by Weekly Roundup: October 29, 2021 - LPE Project

Weekly Roundup: October 29, 2021 - LPE Project — Fri, 29 Oct 2021 11:00:33 +0000

[…] Jotwell, Sarah Schindler discussed Jessica A. Shoemaker’s recent article, “Fee Simple Failures: Rural Landscapes and […]

Comment on Rethinking the Fee Simple in Rural America by ‘Rethinking the Fee Simple in Rural America’ | Private Law Theory - Obligations, property, legal theory

Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:00:38 +0000

[…] Jessica A Shoemaker, ‘Fee Simple Failures: Rural Landscapes and Race’, 120 Michigan Law Review 1695 (2021). Newly released census data reveals that our rural places continue to shrink. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report cements that climate change is widespread and intensifying. The pandemic has hit hard in rural places, with outbreaks centered around slaughterhouses, which predominantly employ people of color. At the same time, the country as a whole is reckoning with issues of racial justice. All of these issues surface in Professor Jessica Shoemaker’s latest article … (more) […]

Comment on Knick, Federal Courts, and Regulatory Takings by El roam

El roam — Fri, 06 Aug 2021 16:48:55 +0000

Important post or issue indeed.

Reading the dissenting of Justice Rehnquist in the Penn Central case, may help a lot by the way, and make some order here. Justice Rehnquist interprets and correctly so, the meaning of “Just” compensations, as going beyond binary meaning of zero/ one. Means, what is beyond the scale or scope of “zoning”, and the harm suffered so by the individual or landlord, falls on him and not spread publicly and evenly , must be considered as taking.

I quote him:

” The benefits that appellees believe will flow from preservation of the Grand Central Terminal will accrue to all the citizens of New York City. There is no reason to believe that appellants will enjoy a substantially
greater share of these benefits. If the cost of preserving Grand Central Terminal were spread evenly across the entire population of the city of New York, the burden per person would be in cents per year-a minor cost appellees would surely concede for the benefit accrued. Instead, however, appellees would impose the entire cost of several million dollars per year on Penn Central. But it is precisely this sort of discrimination that the Fifth Amendment prohibits.”

And more:

” Of all the terms used in the Taking Clause, “just compensation” has the strictest meaning. The Fifth Amendment does not allow simply an approximate compensation but requires” a full and perfect equivalent for the property taken.”

Thanks