I do not allow the use of electronic equipment (laptops, tablets, cell phones, etc.) in class. While there are a number of reasons for this, the most compelling from my point of view is that they seem to be a barrier to conversation and thought.
Property by Jesse Dukeminier starting at $1.49. Property has 6 available editions to buy at Half Price Books Marketplace.
For those who are concerned that they might miss something taking handwritten notes, I will have every class recorded, and the recordings will be available online. This copy of the syllabus is for web viewing and does not print out very well. If you want to download and print out a PDF version, click. Introduction Traditionally, property was a six-hour course taught over the entire first year of law school. With the increasing “semesterization” of first-year courses, the tendency is to relegate property to the spring. There are, no doubt, some things about the course that may be a bit easier to understand after one has had a semester of law school; there are also, however, some things about the course that make more sense in the context of the first-semester program.
I have taught the course in both the fall and the spring and have found that the advantages and disadvantages of each semester are about evenly balanced. This semester we’ll be doing it in the fall. Most of the procedural turns that appear in the cases we will be studying you will also be studying in civil procedure. Concepts that appear in property will also appear in your course in contracts.
You will discover that legislation and regulation are profoundly important for property. The institution of property is also protected in the private law of torts and also in the public law of crime. You won’t be studying those until the spring, but we will give you some hints, at least of the former. What makes property particularly appropriate for the fall is that it begins at the beginning, at least conceptually and methodologically. It asks some basic questions about legal method, particularly about the analysis of cases and statutes, and it introduces us to the basic forms of establishing entitlements in our law of property. It then proceeds to spend about a month on conveyancing and estates in land, about a month on private and public controls on land use, and about a week wrapping up the big ideas.
While there are certainly other topics that we could cover, this coverage manages to introduce most if not all of the major themes in the modern law of property. Materials The book for the course is C.
D ONAHUE, C ASES AND M ATERIALS ON P ROPERTY: A N I NTRODUCTION TO THE C ONCEPT AND THE I NSTITUTION (tent. 4th ed., multilith, 2017) DKM4. The materials are based on C. M ARTIN, C ASES AND M ATERIALS ON P ROPERTY: A N I NTRODUCTION TO THE C ONCEPT AND THE I NSTITUTION (3d ed., West Publishing Co., 1993) hereafter DKM3. You don’t have to buy DKM3. You certainly don’t have to buy a new copy. All the assigned readings in the course will be in DKM4.
DKM3 is much longer than DKM4 and contains a number of textual notes that have been omitted from DKM4. It offers a supplement to DKM4, but you may be better off buying either the “Gilbert’s Outline” of property and/or Merrill and Smith’s Introduction to Property (see below under “Secondary reading”). I urge you to read the to DKM4 now.
The of DKM4 and this Syllabus also provides a skeletal outline as we go along. Finally, I will distribute skeletal outlines of the material as we cover it. (The first one is found on the website under.) All of these attempt to give you the “big picture” of the material, something we tend to lose sight of in class in our effort to figure out who sued whom in the Jones case. Secondary reading. J OSEPH S INGER, I NTRODUCTION TO P ROPERTY (2d ed. 2005) is a relatively new hornbook that covers most of what we will be covering in the course.
It is a long book, but it is probably the best comprehensive, single-volume treatise on the market. S TOEBUCK & D. W HITMAN, T HE L AW OF P ROPERTY (3d ed. 2000) is a more traditional hornbook covering much of the same ground. For those seeking more compact coverage J. C RIBBET, P RINCIPLES OF THE L AW OF P ROPERTY (3d ed.
B ERNHARDT, R EAL P ROPERTY IN A N UTSHELL (4th ed. 2000) may be more helpful than harmful if properly used. Some students find C. M OYNIHAN & S. K URTZ, I NTRODUCTION TO THE L AW OF P ROPERTY: A N H ISTORICAL B ACKGROUND OF THE C OMMON L AW OF R EAL P ROPERTY AND ITS M ODERN A PPLICATION (4th ed.
H ASKELL, P REFACE TO E STATES IN L AND F UTURE I NTERESTS (2d ed. 1984) useful for the estates section of the course. For various reasons—one of which is ignorance—I do not recommend any of the other standard student books on property, except for the “Gilbert’s Outline” discussed below. You may buy any of the above-cited books (or Gilbert’s) if you wish, but the only required book is DKM4. This year I am recommending, but not requiring, that students purchase the “Gilbert’s Outline” of property. Panipat pdf in marathi rava. The author, James Krier, is a professor at the University of Michigan, and his knowledge of property is profound.
His predecessor, Jesse Dukeminier, was a professor at UCLA and one of the leading property scholars of his generation. My problem is not with the competence of the authors; my problem is with the genre. This is something that we should talk about during the semester. I don’t always agree with Krier’s statement of the rules, and I frequently would be more qualified than he is. The nature of an outline is to oversimplify. I have also asked the Coop to stock another recent book T HOMAS W.
M ERRILL & H ENRY E. S MITH, T HE O XFORD I NTRODUCTIONS TO U.S. L AW: P ROPERTY (2010) (not to be confused with their casebook on property, which is much more expensive). Merrill and Smith’s ‘take’ on property issues is not quite mine, but that’s a good thing.
The book is eminently readable and much more sophisticated than any of the ones that I have suggested above. It’s also quite short, and it won’t cost you an arm and a leg.
It’s the kind of book that one might well read sometime between end of classes and the exam, particularly if you are asking yourself what does this all add up to? Syllabus Notes You will find that the syllabus contains, in addition to page assignments, a brief description of what the class will be about. When a case name or names are given, we will devote much of the class to analysis of that case or those cases. When a case name is not given, we will devote the class to a discussion of problems, doctrine or policy. The fact that a case is not listed in the syllabus does not mean that you should not read the case if it is on the assigned pages; rather the fact that the case name is not mentioned in the syllabus means that I hope you can handle the case by yourselves and will try to put the class emphasis elsewhere.
Page references are to DKM4 are indicated by “S,” a holdover from the fact that it began life a Supplement to DKM3. Since I’m working on updating DKM4, the pages may get out of whack later in the semester.
If they do, I’ll issue an updated version of the syllabus. How to Proceed At the beginning of each of the numbered sections of the book, I recommend that you skim through the section, getting some sense of its basic organization.
It will frequently be helpful to read over the textual notes before you prepare the principal cases, but a reading of the notes (and even more of an outline) should never substitute for a reading of the principal cases. On the other hand, the notes are important. They are designed to provoke your thinking on a given topic and to give you doctrinal background which is frequently important for understanding what is going on in the principal cases.
DKM was designed to be taught out of order. It therefore has more than the usual number of cross-references. Most students find that the cross-references are more useful when they come to review the material than they are when they are dealing with the material for the first time. You will frequently come to questions in the notes for which you cannot provide a simple answer.
This should not concern you. You should, however, begin to ask yourself why it is that you cannot give a simple answer to the question, and if this process provokes some thought on the nature of legal materials generally, so much the better.
You should feel no compulsion to look up the authorities cited in the notes unless you really want to. You should, however, familiarize yourself sufficiently with legal citation form that you know what it is that is being cited. Question and Answer Sessions Beginning in late September (earlier if there is demand), I will schedule weekly question and answer sessions probably on Tuesday at noon (they usually last about an hour). These are not extra classes, and I will cover no new material. Indeed, I won’t “cover” any material.
These sessions are designed to allow you to ask any questions that you want to ask. Attendance is not required.
Dukeminier Property 9th Edition
In the past most students have come to some of them; a few have come to all or none of them. In one of the last question and answer sessions in November, I will go over an essay question from an old exam. I will also schedule one during the exam period before the exam. Office Hours My office is in Hauser 512 in the Law School. My office hours are currently scheduled from 1:30–3:30 on Tuesdays, or by appointment. There is a sign-up sheet on the door.
I don’t think that office hours are a particularly good time to ask specific questions about the course. That’s what the question-and-answer sessions are for.
Office hours are for talking about life. Syllabus Setting a syllabus for a 1L course is dangerous business. Every class has its own rhythm. I am confident that we will take up the material in this order and that the readings will be no longer than what is given below. I am far less confident that we will take up the material on the specific dates mentioned or that what we will take up will be exactly what is given here. This is the basics; there will probably be variations.
Tentative Assignments Topic I. ESTABLISHING ENTITLEMENTS Assignment for: A. Possession = Ownership? Wed., 30 Aug.
(Read the principal case carefully, probably more than once. Then look at the Questions on p. The Notes that follow give you material that you can use in answering the questions.
In the first class, we probably will not have reference to the material in Notes 4–6, but we may well have reference to the Problems on pp. The Note on the Reception will not be the subject of much class discussion.) Mon., 4 Sep. Labor Day holiday.
Pierson (cont’d); Keeble, pp. Note on Game Laws, pp. (Class will begin with Keeble and will then loop back to reconsider Pierson, particularly in the light of Notes 4–6. Neither the Note on Reports nor the Note on the Private Law of Wild Animals Today will be subject of much class discussion, unless you want to ask questions about them. The Note on Game Laws will be dealt with more generally in the next class. For this class you might want to ask whether Livingston, J., was correct when we says “we are without any municipal regulations of our own” (p.
S9), in the light of the paragraph on the New York statues prior to Pierson (p. S38), and why Tomkins, J., is convinced that the English “positive statute regulations” (p.
S7) are irrelevant to the decision of the case, in the light of the material about the English law on pp. S35–S36.) Wed., 6 Sep.
(The Note on Game Laws is important for this case.) Blackstone, Maine, Locke, pp. Mon., 11 Sep. Johnson, Percheman, pp. (We will not cover the Note on Indian Titles in class, unless you want to ask questions about it.) Tue., 12 Sep. Maitland, Tapscott, Winchester, pp. (Focus on the principal cases. The notes are placed before the cases because they help explain what’s going on in the cases.
You may, however, want to do it the other way around, i.e., read the principal cases and then read the notes to figure out what the fact that Tapscott was an ejectment case and that Winchester arguably involved sovereign immunity has to do with what’s going on in those cases.) B. Possession vs. Ownership Wed., 13 Sep.
Adverse Possession of Land, pp. (Class discussion will focus on the questions posed in the notes rather than on the principal cases. We will probably not cover the Note on Disability Provisions in detail, though it provides a nice exercise for self-testing. ) Mon., 18 Sep.
Adverse Possession (cont’d), pp. (Class discussion will focus on the questions posed on pp. S104–S106, making use of the analysis suggested by Hohfeld. If you find the concept of life estates briefly discussed on p. S106 note 4 confusing, you might want to read the explanation of them on p. S209–S210.) Tue., 19 Sep. Adverse Possession (review the above assignments).
(What we do with the problem on pp. S109–S111 is, to a certain extent, up to you.
In the past students have written out answers to it as a practice exam.) C. Possession or Ownership: What is it worth? Wed., 20 Sep. Geragosian, Peters, pp.
Mon., 25 Sep. Edwards (2 cases), pp. Tue., 26 Sep. Review Edwards (2 cases), pp. Note on Present Value Calculations, pp. A Very Brief Introduction to the Property You Can’t Touch Wed., 27 Sep. Introductory Note, INS v.
AP; Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company, S145–S163. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND A. Conveyancing Mon., 2 Oct. Metzger, Statute of Frauds, Hayes, pp.
(Class discussion in the first half of the class will focus on the questions on p. Then we’ll move on to Hayes. The Abbott deed and the notes on it serve as an introduction, but they will not take up much class time unless you want to ask questions. The first note on the Abbott deed will merit rereading when we get to estates in land and future interests.) Tue., 3 Oct. Micklethwait, Hood, pp.
What You Can Transfer Wed., 4 Oct. Introduction to Common Law Estates and Future Interests: Present Estates: Fee Simple and Life Estates, pp. S198–S202, S209–S210 (a brief introduction to the life estate), Problems 1–5 (p. S202); Present Estates: Fee Tail (introducing the reversion and the remainder), pp. S202–S204, we will not do Problems 6 and 7 (p.
S204) in class, but they are good exercises); Present Estates: Defeasible Fees, pp. S204–S205, Problems 8–10, pp. S205; Storke, pp. S205–209; Summary, p. Columbus Day holiday.
Tue., 10 Oct. Columbus Day extended, holiday. Wed., 11 Oct. Future Interests: Remainders and Reversions, pp. S211–S213; Problems 12 and 13 (p. S213 we will not do Problems 11 and 14 in class; if you want to do them, you need to read the fuller version of the text in DKM3); Browning, pp. Mon., 16 Oct.
Future Interests: Executory Interests, pp. S220–224; Problems 15–16 (p. S224); Abbott, pp. Tue., 17 Oct. The Policy Against Undue Restraints on Alienation, pp. S229–S233, S244–S246, S247–S258; Problems, p. (Note: I will not hold you to a detailed knowledge of the Rule in Shelley’s Case or the Doctrine of Worthier Title, and we will not do the problems on those doctrines.
Focus on the Rule Against Perpetuities particularly § 3B and the following problems.) Wed., 18 Oct. S261–S270; Brown, pp. Mon., 23 Oct. General Introduction to Concurrent Interests and Marital Estates, pp. S235–S243, S275–S279; Problems, p.
S237, S240; Holbrook, pp. S279–S289; S279–81.
(Note: I will not hold you to a detailed knowledge of tenancy in partnership or condominiums and cooperatives, but you should know that they exist. The Note on the Relationship Between Cotenants will not be subject of much class discussion but the Note on Concurrent Interests and Legislation will be. After that, we will deal with the Holbrook case.) Tue., 24 Oct.
Common Law and Community Property, pp. (Note: This is long.
I don’t expect you to remember the details. What I want you to do is to get some idea of the various ways in which the law deals either positively or negatively with the marital unit.) Wed., 25 Oct. Javins, Lemle, pp. S233–S235, S318–S342. (Note: There is a long note after Javins. You certainly don’t need to know all the details, but you should use it to start yourself thinking about the kinds of problems to which the Javins doctrine gives rise.) Mon., 30 Oct.
Pennell, Braschi, pp. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CONTROL OF LAND USE A. Private Control Tue., 31 Oct. Boomer, Coase, pp.
Waldrop, Petersen, Cox, pp. Waldrop, Petersen, Cox (cont’d); Cooke, pp. S403–S416; Introduction to Covenants, pp. The Note on Distinguishing Among Different Types of Easements and Other Related Interests will not be subject of much class discussion unless you want to ask questions about it. We will, however, spend some time on the Notes and Questions following Cooke.
Charping, Richmond, Riley, pp. Riley (cont’d), Ginsberg, Camelback, pp. (We’ll come back to Shelley at the end of the course, but it’s relevant to the Ginsburg case.) B. Public Control Mon., 13 Nov. S463–S470; Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, Euclid, S470–S481; Pierro, Stoyanoff, pp. (This is long; we may not get to Stoyanoff until the next class.) Tue., 14 Nov. Exclusionary Zoning, pp.
(We will spend some time on the basic argument in Mount Laurel I. We then should ask, in the light of what after the case as described in the note that follows it, whether the problem raised by the Mount Laurel litigation is soluble.) Wed., 15 Nov. Takings and the Constitution, pp.
S509–S513; Penn Central, pp. S513–S524; Note on 1987, pp. Mon., 20 Nov. S528–S547; Palazzolo, pp. S547–S556; Murr v. Wisconsin, pp. (This is long; I know that.
But if we are going to figure out where we are going, or are likely to go, on the critical issue of regulatory takings, we really need to come to grips with massive amounts of verbiage that the Supreme Court is producing on the topic. If you are pressed for time, you can omit the footnotes Lucas, but then you will miss the delight of watching Supreme Court justices battle with each other in the footnotes. If you are really pressed for time, read Murr, and then go back to see how the opinions in Murr use Lucas and Palazzolo, but that is really not a substitute for reading the cases in chronological order.) Tue., 21 Nov.
City of New London, S559–S584. (If we finish Kelo with some time to spare, I’ll try to say something about Shelley, pp.
S604–S609, which is part of the next assignment.) Wed., 22 Nov. Thanksgiving vacation begins. Sun., 26 Nov. Thanksgiving vacation ends. THE WHAT AND WHY OF PROPERTY Mon., 27 Nov. Bentham, Demsetz, Shelley, Hegel, Flemming, Reich, pp. Tue., 28 Nov.
Marx, Shack, PruneYard, pp. Wed., 29 Nov. Final lecture.
TBA Final Exam (one hour in-class short answer questions followed by take-home for the rest of the day essay question(s)).
ILRG Law School Course Outlines Archive The following law course outlines are available for free download for your. They have been contributed by current or former law students. To Download: For most web browsers, single click your right mouse button on the file you wish to download and select 'Save Target As.' Course Text book / Authors School Professor Size Coverage Herwitz and Barrett, 3rd Ed. USC Levy 226kb Fall 2002 J.
Merrill, & P. Shane Yale Mashaw 324kb Fall 2004 J. Merrill, & P. Shane Yale Mashaw 163kb Fall 2004 Strauss, Rakoff, & Farina; 10th Ed. Harvard Stephenson 603kb Fall 2006 Trade Regulation, Handler 4th Ed. Chicago Picker 360kb Winter 2002 Pitofsky, Goldschmid, Wood, 5th Ed. Chicago Wood 240kb Autumn 2003 Pitofsky, Goldschmid, Wood, 5th Ed.
Duke Richman 309kb Fall 2005 Hamilton, 5th Ed. Texas Carson 153kb Summer 1996 Hamilton, 5th Ed. Texas Carson 129kb Summer 1996 Hamilton, 5th Ed.
Texas Hamilton 118kb Fall 1996 Allen, Kraakman, 1st Ed. Yale Hansmann 211kb Fall 2005 Steiker Supplement Texas Steiker 237kb Summer 2002 Cohen, 1st. Georgetown Cohen 305kb Fall 2005 Business Associations, Klein 4th Chicago Isenbergh 200kb Winter 2002 Business Corporations, Allen, 1st Ed. NYU Allen 272kb Fall 2003 Marcus, Redish & Sherman, 2nd Ed. Texas Sherman 325kb Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Tigar Supplement, 1995-96 Ed.
Texas Tigar 181kb Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Marcus, Redish & Sherman, 2nd Ed. Texas Hansen 296kb Fall 1996/Spring 1997 Marcus, Redish & Sherman, 3rd Ed. Texas Silver 427kb Fall 2002/Spring 2003 Yeazell, 5th Ed. Chicago Buss 300kb Autumn 2002 Yeazell, 5th Ed. Chicago Buss 256kb Spring 2003 Yeazell, 6th Ed.
Harvard Hay 260kb Fall 2004 Yeazell, 6th Ed. Georgetown Kang 356kb Spring 2005 Ides and May Duke Fisk 196kb Fall 2004 Fiss and Resnik Yale Resnik 480kb Fall 2003 Fiss and Resnik Yale Resnik 88kb Fall 2003 Van Alstyne, 1st Amend., 2nd Ed. Texas Rabban 634kb Spring 1997 Graglia Docs 1997 Texas Graglia 245kb Spring 1997 Lively, Haddon, Roberts, 2nd Ed. Howard Jamal 517kb Spring 2003 Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet Yale Rubenfeld 942kb Fall 2003 Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet Yale Rubenfeld 194kb Fall 2003 Brest, Levinson, Balkin et al, 4th Ed. Northwestern Koppleman 204kb Spring 2003 Chemerinsky, 2001 Duke Schroeder 167kb Fall 2004 Sullivan & Gunther, 14th Rev. Duke Powell 172kb Fall 2004 Hamilton, Rau & Weintraub, 2nd Ed.
Texas Hamilton 257kb Spring 1996 Hamilton, Rau & Weintraub, 2nd Ed. Texas Hamilton 188kb Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Hamilton, Rau & Weintraub, 2nd Ed. Texas Hamilton 73kb Fall 1995 Hamilton, Rau & Weintraub, 2nd Ed. Harvard Warren 288kb Fall 2005 Dawson, Harvey, Henderson, 6th Ed.
Texas Gergen 93kb Spring 1996 Dawson, Harvey, Henderson, 6th Ed. Texas Gergen 98kb Spring 1996 Dawson, Harvey, Henderson, 8th Ed.
Harvard Ferrell 260kb Fall 2004 McCauley, Kidwell, et al, 1st Ed. Texas Russell 208kb Fall 1996/Spring 1997 Fuller and Eisenberg, 7th Ed. USC Matheson 221kb Fall 2001 Knapp, 4th Ed.
Colorado Peppet 125kb Fall 2001 Murphy, Speidel and Ayres Yale Brooks 492kb Fall 2003 Murphy, Speidel and Ayres Yale Brooks 88kb Fall 2003 James J. White Coursepack 2003 Michigan White 792kb Fall 2003 Barnett, 3rd Ed. Penn Madison 646kb Fall 2003 Knapp, Crystal, and Prince, 5th Ed. Harvard Brewer 888kb Fall 2004 Knapp, Crystal, and Prince, 5th Ed.
Duke Salzman 213kb Spring 2005 Sharlot & Dix, 3rd Ed. Texas Goode 110kb Fall 1996 Kadish and Schulhofer, 7th Ed. Chicago Schulhofer 435kb Winter 2001 LaFave, Modern Crim. USC Dripps 355kb Spring 2002 Bonnie Coughlin Jefferies Low, 97 Ed. Michigan Forde-Mazrui 272kb Fall 2003 Kadish, Schulhofer, 7th Ed.
Harvard Steiker 380kb Fall 2004 Kaplan, Weisberg & Binder, 3rd Ed. Duke Beale 244kb Fall 2004 Whitebread and Slobogin, 4th Ed. Chicago Meares 215kb Fall 2002 Kamisar LaFave Israel King, 10th Ed.
Chicago Alschuler 144kb Autumn 2003 Percival, Schroeder, Miller, Leape, 4th Harvard Stephenson 511kb Spring 2006 Green, Nesson, & Murray, 2nd Ed. Toledo Steinbach 164kb Fall 2001 Mueller and Kirkpatrick, 4th Ed. USC Campbell 432kb Fall 2002 Mueller and Kirkpatrick, 5th Ed. Georgetown Tague 153kb Fall 2005 Waltz and Park, 10th Ed. Harvard Brewer 674kb Fall 2005 Mueller and Kirkpatrick, 5th Ed. Yale Kahan 147kb Spring 2005 Swisher, Miller, & Singer, 2nd Ed.
Toledo Berkowitz 369kb Spring 2002 Fallon, Hart, Wechsler, et al, 5th Ed. Yale Resnik 197kb Spring 2005 Abram, Beal, 3rd Ed. Texas Sievert 149kb Fall 2002 Kline, 10th Ed. Texas Evans 85kb Summer 1995 Freeland, Lind, & Stephens, 10th Ed. Clara Green 131kb Fall 1998 Basic FIT, Andrews, 5th Ed. Chicago Isenbergh 122kb Winter 2001 Basic FIT, Westin, 1st Ed. Colorado Gazur 172kb Fall 2002 Kline, 13th Ed.
Georgetown Pearlman 523kb Fall 2005 Kline, 13th Ed. Yale Zolt 219kb Fall 2005 Hall, Bobinski & Orentlicher, 6th Ed. Harvard Malani 600kb Fall 2006 Patent Law, Francis, 4th Ed. Houston Hewitt 83kb Fall 1996 Intellectual Property, Barrett 2nd Chicago Landes 309kb Fall 2002 Intellectual Property, Dreyfuss 2nd Duke Boyle 316kb Fall 2005 Folsom, Gordon, 3rd Ed.
Houston Murphy 168kb Fall 1996 Weintraub, 1994 Ed. Texas Weintraub 120kb Spring 1997 Weintraub, 1994 Ed. Texas Weintraub 48kb Spring 1997 Eskridge, Frickey, Garrett 3rd Ed. Chicago Garrett 269kb Fall 2002 Cyberspace & the Law, Cavazos Houston Cavazos 66kb Fall 1996 Oil & Gas, 3rd Ed., Smith Texas Smith 252kb Summer 2002 Merges and Duffy, 3rd Ed. Chicago Lichtman 204kb Winter 2002 Sutton & Dzienkowski, 1989 Ed. Texas Dzienkowski 136kb Summer II 1996 Cribbet, Johnson, Findley, Smith, 6th Texas E. Smith 252kb Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Cribbet, Johnson, Findley, Smith, 6th Texas E.
Smith 43kb Fall 1995 Cribbet, Johnson, Findley, Smith, 6th Texas E. Smith 58kb Spring 1996 Dukeminier & Krier, 3rd Ed.
Dukeminier 6th Edition Property Outline Harvard Free
Texas Chambliss 149kb Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Hovenkamp and Kurtz, 3rd. Texas Torres 353kb Fall 2002 Property, Dukeminier 4th Ed. Chicago Currie 237kb Winter 2001 Property, Dukeminier 4th Ed. Colorado Collins 125kb Fall 2001 Property, Dukeminier 5th Ed. Georgetown Cohen 293kb Spring 2005 Burke, Burkhart, Helmholz Chicago Helmholz 664kb Winter 2003 Casner Leach, 4th Ed. Smith 536kb Spring 2004 Donahue, Kauper, Martin, 3rd. Harvard Donahue 817kb Fall 2004 Rider Supplement Texas Rider 272kb Fall 2002 Whaley, 6th Ed.
Texas Westbrook 140kb Fall 2004 Ratliff, 2nd Ed. Texas Ratliff 548kb Fall 1996 Prosser, Wade/Schwartz, 9th Ed. Texas McGarity 167kb Fall 1995/Spring 1996 Prosser, Wade/Schwartz, 9th Ed. Texas McGarity 75kb Spring 1996 Robertson, 2nd Ed. Texas Ratliff 138kb Fall 1995 Robertson, 2nd Ed.
Texas Robertson 202kb Fall 1996/Spring 1997 Torts; Franklin, Rabin; 7th Ed. Texas Wagner 297kb Fall 2002/Spring 2003 Torts, Epstein 7th Ed. Chicago Levmore 227kb Winter 2001 Torts, Epstein 7th Ed. Yale Coleman 60kb Fall 2003 Torts, Epstein 7th Ed. Yale Coleman 276kb Fall 2003 Torts; Franklin, Rabin; 7th Ed. GSU Scott 508kb Fall 2003 Christie, Meeks, Pryor, Sanders, 4th Duke Christie 152kb Spring 2005 Henderson, Pearson, Siliciano, 3rd Harvard Kysar 738kb Spring 2005 Dukeminier & Johanson, 6th Ed.
Chicago Davis 169kb Fall 2002 Dukeminier & Johanson, 6th Ed. Texas Johanson 664kb Fall 2002 Please Read: Usage Notice and Disclaimer Although the Internet Legal Research Group has tried to assemble the best possible outlines, we make no warranties as to the accuracy of the information they contain. Use them at your own risk, and do not rely on them for legal advice.
As the outlines all have been written by law students, they may contain inaccurate information. Usage of these outlines is also subject to the terms of our. Furthermore, some law schools have policies that permit law students to take outlines into final exams so long as the student actually wrote the outline.
If your law school has such a policy, you are expressly prohibited from representing any of the outlines contained in this archive as your own. If you are not sure of your law school's policy, you should contact the appropriate administrative staff at your school. Lastly, these outlines are copyrighted © 1995-2016 by their respective authors and the Internet Legal Research Group. No part of any of these outlines may be reproduced or redistributed in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders. ILRG reserves the exclusive right to distribute these outlines.
Otherwise, the authors of these outlines and the Internet Legal Resource Guide genuinely hope you derive benefit from them. Related ILRG Pages.