美國(guó)財(cái)產(chǎn)法-第2版-英文版

內(nèi)容概要

《美國(guó)財(cái)產(chǎn)法(第2版)(英文版)》共分為六章，通過財(cái)產(chǎn)的取得、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)益、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)租賃、私人對(duì)土地使用的控制、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓、國(guó)家對(duì)土地使用的管理這六個(gè)方面介紹了美國(guó)的財(cái)產(chǎn)法，書中還加入了案例分析。

書籍目錄

第一章財(cái)產(chǎn)的取得 第一節(jié)財(cái)產(chǎn)的原始取得 一、通過捕獲取得財(cái)產(chǎn) 案例1 Graves v.Dunlap 二、通過創(chuàng)造取得財(cái)產(chǎn) 案例2 Martin Luther Kin9，Jr.，Center for Social Change，Inc.v.American 案例3 Hecht V.Superior Court 第二節(jié)財(cái)產(chǎn)的繼受取得 一、通過拾得取得財(cái)產(chǎn) 案例4 Powell V.Four Thousand Six Hundred Dollars（＄4 600.00）U.S.Currency 二、通過贈(zèng)與取得財(cái)產(chǎn) 案例5 Cravens V.Holliday 案例6 Woo v.Smart 三、通過時(shí)效占有取得財(cái)產(chǎn) 案例7 Wadkins v.Melton 第二章不動(dòng)產(chǎn)權(quán)益 第一節(jié)現(xiàn)時(shí)利益和未來利益 一、終身所有權(quán) 案例8 Thorn V.Stephens 二、可終止的完全所有權(quán) 案例9 Higbee Corp.V.Kennedy 第二節(jié) 共有 一、聯(lián)合共有的終止 案例10 Minonk State Bank v.Grassman 二、共有人的權(quán)利和義務(wù) 案例11 Stylianopoulos V.Stylianopoulos 三、共有財(cái)產(chǎn)的分割 案例12 Eli v.Eli 四、夫妻共有財(cái)產(chǎn) 案例13 Hoak v.Hoak 案例14 Corasanti V.Corasanti 第三章不動(dòng)產(chǎn)租賃 第一節(jié) 租賃關(guān)系的設(shè)立 案例15 Cox V.Parishi 第二節(jié) 不動(dòng)產(chǎn)租賃的種類 案例16 Philpot v.Fields 案例17 Boyles V.Petrucelli 第三節(jié) 出租人的義務(wù) 一、向承租人交付出租的不動(dòng)產(chǎn) 案例18 Cheshire V.Thurston 二、出租人關(guān)于安寧享受權(quán)的默示承諾 案例19 First Wisconsin Trust Co.v.L.Wiemann Co. 三、出租人關(guān)于可居住性的默示擔(dān)保 案例20 Javins v.First Nat.Realty Corp. 第四節(jié)承租人的義務(wù) 一、承租人支付租金的義務(wù) 案例21 Hargis v.Mel—Mad Corp. 二、承租人避免對(duì)租賃財(cái)產(chǎn)造成損害的義務(wù) 案例22 U.S.Gypsum Co.v.Schiavo Bros.，Inc. 第五節(jié)租賃的轉(zhuǎn)讓 案例23 Joscar Co.v.Arlen Realty 第四章不動(dòng)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓 第一節(jié) 不動(dòng)產(chǎn)買賣合同 一、合同的形式要件 案例24 Forsberg v.Day 二、賣方的義務(wù) 案例25 Lovell v.Jimal Holding Corp. 案例26 Eickmeyer v.Blitz Organization，Inc. 第二節(jié) 不動(dòng)產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓書 案例27 Chandlerv.Chandler 第三節(jié)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)利益的保障 案例28 Smith V.Arrow Transp.Co.，Inc. 第五章私人對(duì)土地使用的控制 第一節(jié)妨害 一、對(duì)私人的妨害 案例29 Massey v.Long 二、對(duì)公眾的妨害 案例30 People ofRedford Tp.v.McGregor 第二節(jié) 用益物權(quán) 一、用益物權(quán)的設(shè)立 案例31 Schwartz v.Murphy 案例32 McCormick v.Schubrin9 案例33 Algermissen v.Sutin 二、用益物權(quán)的范圍 案例34 Heartz v.City ofConcord 三、用益物權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)讓 案例35 Champaign Nat.Bank v.Illinois Power C0. 四、用益物權(quán)的終止 案例36 Board of Educ.，East Irondequoit Central School Dist.v.Doe 第六章 國(guó)家對(duì)土地使用的管理 第一節(jié)規(guī)劃 一、規(guī)劃的權(quán)力 案例37 Dvorak V.City ofBloomington 二、規(guī)劃的目的 案例38 City ofNichols Hills v.Richardson 三、規(guī)劃法規(guī)的效力 案例39 Good Neighbors of South Davidson V.Town of Denton 案例40 BAC，Inc.V.Board of Sup’rs of MiUcreek Tp 四、規(guī)劃的靈活性 案例41 City of Sugar Creek v.Reese 第二節(jié)征收 一、為公共目的 案例42 Kelo v.City ofNew London，Conn. 二、構(gòu)成征收的行為 案例43 Tahoe—Sierra Preservation Council，Inc.V.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 三、補(bǔ)償 案例44 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v—Los Angeles County，Cal.

章節(jié)摘錄

版權(quán)頁：   The right of publicity is assignable during the life of the celebrity, forwithout this characteristic, full commercial exploitation of one's name andlikeness is practically impossible. Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum,supra, 202 E2d at 868. That is, without assignability the right of publicitycould hardly be called a "right". Recognizing its assignability, mostcommentators have urged that the right of publicity must also be inheritable. The courts that have considered the problem are not as unanimous. InPrice v. Hal Roach Studios, Inc., supra, 400 ESupp. 836, the court reasonedthat since the fight of publicity was assignable, it survived the deaths ofStanley Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Other decisions from the Southern Districtof New York recognize the descendibility of the right of publicity, which hasalso been recognized by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (infra). In Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 579 F.2d 215 (2d Cir.1978), ElvisPresley had assigned his right of publicity to Boxcar Enterprises, whichassigned that fight to Factors after Presley's death. Defendant Pro Artspublished a poster of Presley entitled "In Memory". In affirming the grant ofinjunction against Pro Arts, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said: "Theidentification of this exclusive right belonging to Boxcar as a transferableproperty right compels the conclusion that the fight survives Presley's death.The death of Presley, who was merely the beneficiary of an income interest inBoxcar's exclusive right, should not in itself extinguish Boxcar's propertyright. Instead, the income interest, continually produced from Boxcar'sexclusive right of commercial exploitation, should inure to Presley's estate atdeath like any other intangible property fight. To hold that the right did notsurvive Presley's death, would be to grant competitors of Factors, such as ProArts, a windfall in the form of profits from the use of Presley's name andlikeness. At the same time, the exclusive right purchased by Factors and thefinancial benefits accruing to the celebrity's heirs would be rendered virtuallyworthless."

編輯推薦

《美國(guó)財(cái)產(chǎn)法(第2版)(英文版)》由對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)出版社出版。

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    美國(guó)財(cái)產(chǎn)法-第2版-英文版 PDF格式下載

---