The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon by James D. Barnett

"This book, as the title indicates, is a practical rather than theoretical study.

The Tonsils as a Habitat of Oral Endamebas: Possibility of Systemic Complications of Oral Endamebiasis

n/

The Tax Reform Act of 1976: Ruminations on Section 2036 and the Aftermath of Byrum

It has been noted … that the Reform Act amendments of the estate and gift taxes are exceedingly complex, technically flawed in many respects, and frequently reflect policy judgments of questionable soundness. (Professor John H. McCord) The perhaps surprising conclusion compelled by our findings is that today\u27s millionaires, .as well as persons of lesser wealth, no more need pay a stiff estate and gift tax than did their predecessors. It may be that the real certainties of this world are death and tax avoidance. (Professor George Cooper) The two quotations at the head of this article are examples of the malaise within the legal profession concerning the lack of clarity in the gift and estate tax laws. The difficulties do not arise within the context of the two goals of the gift and estate tax statutes: to raise revenue and to equalize the distribution of wealth. Rather, the main problems inhere in the conceptual differences that decision makers demonstrate in defining and giving operational indices to such words as property, power, rights, controls, enjoyment, transfer, and intent. These terms are construed to hamper as well as to assist the larger goals of revenue raising and of breaking down entrenched wealth

Personal Property and Sales -- 1956 Tennessee Survey

The Right to Possession: In Shirley v. State\u27 the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a county court clerk could not be required to return money illegally gained by participation in a gambling game, which money had been confiscated by the sheriff and turned into court. Despite a theoretical difficulty arising from the absence in Tennessee of a statute authorizing forfeiture of gambling funds, the decision invoked the equitable principle that courts will not assist persons violating the law. For its result, the court relied in considerable measure on the New York case of Hofferman v. Simmons, which involved a replevin action to recover money seized in a gambling game. The New York court had reasoned that since in New York replevin is a possessory action in which the plaintiff must show a possessory right recognized by law, the courts would not give their sanction to titles and possessory rights founded only on law breaking. The Tennessee Supreme Court approved essentially the definition of replevin as given by the Court of Appeals of New York, and apparently treated the action in the Shirley case as equivalent to one of replevin though it actually arose as a petition in criminal court