February 2006
Monthly Archive
Property Law #12: Trusts Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:36 pm
Many of the future interests discussed previously have been made obsolete by the trust. Trusts create legal and equitable owners to the same property, with the trustee (the legal owner) having a fiduciary obligation to manage the property for the benefit of the beneficiary (the equitable owner).
Swanson v. Swanson
Property Law #11: Future Interests Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:32 pm
Oftentimes an interest in property will arise at some point in the future, perhaps upon reaching a certain age or accomplishment. Other times the grantor will retain an interest in the land (as we’ve seen in past episodes). Here we will discuss reversion, possibility of reverter, right of entry, vested and contingent remainders, and executory interests.
Property Law #10: Eminent Domain and Defeasible Estates Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:29 pm
What happens when eminent domain is exercised over a defeasible estate? The “string” attached to the land is no longer being fulfilled, but whose fault is that?
Ink v. City of Canton
Property Law #9: Defeasible Estates Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:24 pm
Just because you give or sell someone property doesn’t mean you can’t attach a string to that transfer. Specifically, if the land is not used for a specific purpose the title can shift back to you. We will look at fee simple determinable (with its reverter) and fee simple subject to condition subsequent (with its right of re-entry).
Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees
Mountain Brow Lodge No. 82, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Toscano
Property Law #8: Waste Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:14 pm
In this episode we will examine “waste”, in both its colloquial and legal sense. Our case will also touch on equitable retooling of life estates.
Baker v. Weedon
Criminal Law #10: Rape III Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:08 pm
This is our final episode on rape. We will examine marital immunity (aka the marital exemption), corroboration requirements, jury instructions, and rape-shield laws.
People v. Liberta
State ex. rel. Pope v. Superior Court
State v. DeLawder
Neeley v. Commonwealth
Wood v. Alaska
Govt. of the Virgin Islands v. Scuito
Criminal Law #9: Rape II Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:02 pm
In this, our second episode on rape, we will examine several topics. They include a definition of force, varying levels of consent, consent obtained by deception, and the mens rea of rape.
State in the Interest of M.T.S.
People v. Evans
Boro v. Superior Court
Commonwealth v. Sherry
Commonwealth v. Fischer
Criminal Law #8: Rape I Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:05 am
This is the first of three episodes handling the issues of rape and sexual crimes. We will examine the general elements of rape, which include penetration, physical force, and a lack of consent. A recurring theme will be the common law’s distrust of alleged rape victims.
State v. Rusk
People v. Warren
State v. Thompson
Criminal Law #7 Placeholder Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Criminal Law and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:04 am
This is a placeholder for Criminal Law #7: Mistake of Law.
Somehow my recorded episode has gone MIA, as have my digital notes. I will replace this episode at some point in the future.
Constitutional Law II #10: Right of Treatment, Right to Die Tuesday, Feb 28 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:59 am
Those who are constrained against their will (ie mentally ill) have a right of treatment. It is also undisputed that an individual has a right to refuse treatment. The difficulty is determining the scope of this right and how to balance it against the state’s varied interests. Additionally, an individual’s “right to die” raises troubling policy questions.
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept. of Health
Washington v. Glucksberg
Listen Now:
Standard Podcast [31:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Ira Krakow's "Is There A Constitutional Right to Withhold Life Support Or to Die With Dignity?" [10:49m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download