Book contents
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Introduction
- I Foundation
- 1 Ownership and possession
- 2 The law is nine-tenths of possession: an adage turned on its head
- 3 The elements of possession
- 4 The economy of concept and possession
- 5 What behavioral studies can teach jurists about possession and vice versa
- 6 The possession heuristic
- 7 Dividing possessory rights
- 8 The titling role of possession
- II Specific issues
- Index
- References
1 - Ownership and possession
from I - Foundation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Edited by
Book contents
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Law and Economics of Possession
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Introduction
- I Foundation
- 1 Ownership and possession
- 2 The law is nine-tenths of possession: an adage turned on its head
- 3 The elements of possession
- 4 The economy of concept and possession
- 5 What behavioral studies can teach jurists about possession and vice versa
- 6 The possession heuristic
- 7 Dividing possessory rights
- 8 The titling role of possession
- II Specific issues
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law and Economics of Possession , pp. 9 - 39Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
American Law Institute 1936. Restatement (First) of Property. St. Paul, Minn.: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
Arrunada, Benito 2012. Institutional Foundations of Impersonal Exchange. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Douglas and Jackson, Thomas 1984. “Information, Uncertainty, and the Transfer of Property,” Journal of Legal Studies 13:299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, Joseph W. 1915. “The Nature and Importance of Legal Possession,” Michigan Law Review 13:535–65.Google Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien and Smith, Henry E. 2012. “An Economic Analysis of Common versus Civil Law Property,” Notre Dame Law Review 88(1):1–55.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1989. “A Hypothesis of Wealth–Maximizing Norms: Evidence from the Whaling Industry,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 5:83–97.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 2008. The Household: Informal Order around the Hearth. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. and Thorland, Charles Dia. 1995. “Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 71:321–411.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 1979. “Possession as the Root of Title,” Georgia Law Review 13: 1221–43.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 2002. “The Allocation of the Commons: Parking on Public Roads,” Journal of Legal Studies 31:S515–44.Google Scholar
Fletcher, George 1976. “The Metamorphosis of the Larceny,” Harvard Law Review 89: 469–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordley, James and Mattei, Ugo 1996. “Protecting Possession,” American Journal of Comparative Law 44:293–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, Tom 1980. “The Disintegration of Property,” in NOMOS XXII: Property (Pennock, J. and Chapman, J. (eds.)). New York University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, D.R. 1961. “The Concept of Possession in English Law,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Guest, A.G. (ed.)). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helmholz, Richard 1983. “Adverse Possession and Subjective Intent,” Washington University Law Quarterly 61:331–58.Google Scholar
Hickey, Robin 2010. Property and the Law of Finders. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell 1881. The Common Law. Howe, Mark DeWolf (ed.) Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Jones, Owen D. and Brosnan, Sarah F. 2008. “Law, Biology and Property: A New Theory of the Endowment Effect,” William and Mary Law Review 49:1935–90.Google Scholar
Korobkin, Russell 2003. “The Endowment Effect and Legal Analysis,” Northwestern University Law Review 97:1227–93.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 1985. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Adverse Possession,” Northwestern University Law Review 79:1122–54.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 1998. “Property and the Right to Exclude,” Nebraska Law Review 77:730–55.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 2012. “The Property Strategy,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160: 2061–95.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. and Smith, Henry E. 2000. “Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle,” Yale Law Journal 110:1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. and Smith, Henry E. 2001. “The Property/Contract Interface,” Columbia Law Review 101:773–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. and Smith, Henry E. 2007. “The Morality of Property,” William and Mary Law Review 48:1849–95.Google Scholar
Pollock, Frederick, and Maitland, Frederick William 1895. The History of English Law, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Frederick, and Wright, Robert Samuel 1888. An Essay on Possession in the Common Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2000. “Savigny, Holmes, and the Law and Economics of Possession,” Virginia Law Review 86:535–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane 1982. “Property and Personhood,” Stanford Law Review 34:957–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jr.Reisman, David 1939. “Possession and the Law of Finders,” Harvard Law Review 52:1105–34.Google Scholar
Savigny, Freidrich Carol 1848. Von Savigny's Treatise on Possession. Translated by Sir Perry, Erskine. 6th edn. London: S. Sweet.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2003. “The Language of Property: Form, Context, and Audience,” Stanford Law Review 55:1105–91.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2005. “Self–Help and the Nature of Property,” Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 1:69–107.Google Scholar
Stake, Jeffrey Evans 2004. “The Property Instinct,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 359:1763–74.Google ScholarPubMed
West, Mark D. 2003. “Losers: Recovering Lost Property in Japan and the United States,” Law & Society Review 37:369–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by