Present and Future Interests: A Graphic Explanation

Few topics bedevil more law students than the law of present and future interests. With the goal of eliminating some of the confusion, this Article highlights the basic doctrine with a new set of diagrams to represent graphically how various interests behave. This Article opens with a question many students ask and then proceeds to the core concepts in the law of present and future interests

Present and Future Interests: A Graphic Explanation

Few topics bedevil more law students than the law of present and future interests. With the goal of eliminating some of the confusion, this Article highlights the basic doctrine with a new set of diagrams to represent graphically how various interests behave. This Article opens with a question many students ask and then proceeds to the core concepts in the law of present and future interests

The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States

In twenty-three states, legislative unwillingness to embrace the UPC as a whole has not precluded adoption of some of its provisions. As the first part of this Article indicates, the most common pattern is for a state to use the Code as a model to solve an isolated, but common, problem. Article II of the UPC, which covers intestacy and wills, is by far the most often copied article; the most often followed sections are those dealing with traditional troublespots, such as the effects of survival, adoption, and divorce. In contrast, among those UPC sections garnering the least attention are those proposing controversial reforms, such as the installation of a system for informal probate. Many jurisdictions that have rejected the Code nonetheless have benefited from its use as a model for solving particular problems. The UPC has also been useful to courts seeking solutions to common-law and statutory construction problems. Part III of this Article suggests that judicial willingness to follow the UPC position on a particular point parallels the legislative pattern of applying the UPC to common troublespots. In addition, this part of the Article discusses the ways advocates have used the UPC both as respected secondary authority and as an aid to the interpretation of particular state statutes. The Code\u27s potential as a source of authority is now established but largely untapped. Because many readers of this journal have a particular interest in Washington law, part IV of this Article briefly applies to Washington the lessons of this Article\u27s first parts. Some areas ripe for legislative reform are identified, and examples are given illustrating how Washington advocates might tap the UPC as a source of argument

The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States

In twenty-three states, legislative unwillingness to embrace the UPC as a whole has not precluded adoption of some of its provisions. As the first part of this Article indicates, the most common pattern is for a state to use the Code as a model to solve an isolated, but common, problem. Article II of the UPC, which covers intestacy and wills, is by far the most often copied article; the most often followed sections are those dealing with traditional troublespots, such as the effects of survival, adoption, and divorce. In contrast, among those UPC sections garnering the least attention are those proposing controversial reforms, such as the installation of a system for informal probate. Many jurisdictions that have rejected the Code nonetheless have benefited from its use as a model for solving particular problems. The UPC has also been useful to courts seeking solutions to common-law and statutory construction problems. Part III of this Article suggests that judicial willingness to follow the UPC position on a particular point parallels the legislative pattern of applying the UPC to common troublespots. In addition, this part of the Article discusses the ways advocates have used the UPC both as respected secondary authority and as an aid to the interpretation of particular state statutes. The Code\u27s potential as a source of authority is now established but largely untapped. Because many readers of this journal have a particular interest in Washington law, part IV of this Article briefly applies to Washington the lessons of this Article\u27s first parts. Some areas ripe for legislative reform are identified, and examples are given illustrating how Washington advocates might tap the UPC as a source of argument

Characterizing Residue-Bilayer Interactions Using Gramicidin A as a Scaffold and Tryptophan Substitutions as Probes

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, copyright © American Chemical Society after peer review and technical editing by the publisher. To access the final edited and published work see http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00400.Previous experiments have shown that the lifetime of a gramicidin A dimer channel (which forms from two non-conducting monomers) in a lipid bilayer is modulated by mutations of the tryptophan (Trp) residues at the bilayer-water interface. We explore this further using extensive molecular dynamics simulations of various gA dimer and monomer mutants at the Trp positions in phosphatidylcholine bilayers with different tail lengths. gA interactions with the surrounding bilayer are strongly modulated by mutating these Trp residues. There are three principal effects: eliminating residue hydrogen bonding ability (i.e., reducing the channel-monolayer coupling strength) reduces the extent of the bilayer deformation caused by the assembled dimeric channel; a residue’s size and geometry affects its orientation, leading to different hydrogen bonding partners; and increasing a residue’s hydrophobicity increases the depth of gA monomer insertion relative to the bilayer center, thereby increasing the lipid bending frustration