The Amendment of the Waste Statute—Retrogression?

It has generally been true that the provisions of waste statutes authorizing multiple damage awards are strictly construed, but this normally has meant that multiple damages will be awarded for voluntary waste whether innocently committed or not, and only single damages for permissive waste. Although the variance between the permissive may and the mandatory shall might not compel the court to reach a different conclusion, under the limitation of the permissive language of the statute announced in DeLano v. Tennent, it would appear that the legislature by changing to shall has flatly rejected the policy against awarding multiple damages and has gone beyond the position normally reached in American jurisdictions

\u3ci\u3eCommunity Property Law in the United States\u3c/i\u3e, by W.S. McClanahan (1982) and \u3ci\u3eCommunity Property in the United States\u3c/i\u3e, by William A. Reppy, Jr. and Cynthia A. Samuel (1982)

These two books with almost identical titles serve similar purposes for two different audiences—the McClanahan treatise for the practicing lawyer, the Reppy and Samuel casebook for the law student (and professor). Both books present the current community property law of the several American states, and in both the coverage of the principles of community property law as that law has developed in the United States will facilitate comparative analysis. This coverage may also minimize the apparent provincialism of decisions in the several states, at least for those problems not already resolved and therefore constrained by stare decisis

Law Revision in the State of Washington

Widespread skepticism about the adequacy of existing law to achieve justice poses one of the most serious problems to the legal profession. The practicing lawyer knows that in most instances existing law is reasonably efficient in achieving sound, just results, but to the uninitiated the instance in which the efficiency is small or the result unjust appears to be the usual circumstance rather than the unusual. Even the informed layman is likely to be more concerned with the inadequacies of present law than with its adequacies, and admitting the extent of skepticism to be unwarranted, still asks, Why don\u27t the lawyers do something about these inadequacies? This article conforms closely to the remarks of the writer to the Seattle Bar Association at its luncheon, February 20, 1952

Washington Legislation-1955: Corporation Law

Covers the law on alien ownership of corporations

Community Property Law

A book review essay considering Principles of Community Property, 2d ed., by William Q. deFuniak and Michael J. Vaughn (1971)

Real Property

Covers laws on eminent domain, forest lands, oil and gas leases, and plats and school dedications

The Community Property Law in Washington (Revised 1985)

The author has twice previously summarized the community property law of Washington. In the eleven years since the most recent effort there have been enough changes to warrant a repetition of the task. Much of the discussion in the 1974 article is still appropriate, needing only reference to any later cases; accordingly, some parts of this article will essentially be an updated and revised version of the earlier article. There are also areas, however, in which the more recent cases prompt a new, more extensive, or modified analysis. The article undertakes that new analysis as well as incorporating the appropriately revised material from 1974, to provide a comprehensive discussion

Foreword

The enactment of Initiative 2081 in the 1960 election authorizes creation of joint tenancies in real and personal property in Washington generally. Many of the potential problems which may confront Washington lawyers because of the general availability of the joint tenancy device are discussed in this symposium. An orderly presentation of the arguments and identification of the particulars to be resolved will be fostered by the effort of the Review editors in assembling the material in this issue. I am sure that members of the Washington bar will agree that we owe a substantial debt to the authors. The discussions which follow reveal expectable differences between the tasks of the counselor, the advocate and the title insurer. To the extent that the informed lawyer is allowed to participate in a joint tenancy transaction at its inception he will be able to meet many of the requirements of the title insurer and minimize the likelihood of litigation, but until answers are provided either by decision or legislation no joint tenancy transaction will be much insulated from litigation, and at least two circumstances suggest that a substantial number of unexpected court proceedings will develop in this area. The first is the practical circumstance that many, if not most, of the joint tenancies will be created without adequate, reliable information. The second is, in a sense, the reverse: an apparently rather widely held belief by laymen that the passage of the Initiative converted ownerships into joint tenancies automatically. This belief appears to be applicable to husband-wife ownerships, and administration of intestate estates and controversies about successions may be more numerous in the future because of the misapprehension

\u3ci\u3eProperty, Wealth, Land Allocation, Planning and Development\u3c/i\u3e, by Myres Smith McDougal and David Haber (1948)

Reviews and comments, direct and indirect, upon this new casebook, developed in furtherance of Professor McDougal\u27s views on the proper functions of law schools, have appeared in print in several places. From some comments a seriously distorted picture of the book and its possible use is almost unavoidable-a circumstance that has persuaded me that the experience of one professor in its use can be helpful