Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T20:08:36.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Dividing possessory rights

from I - Foundation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Daniel B. Kelly
Edited by
Yun-chien Chang
Yun-chien Chang
Affiliation:
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Law and Economics of Possession , pp. 175 - 206
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayotte, Kenneth and Bolton, Patrick 2011. “Optimal Property Rights in Financial Contracting,” Review of Financial Studies 24(10): 3401–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayotte, Kenneth and Smith, Henry E. (eds.) 2011. Research Handbook on the Economics of Property Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Jonathan M. 2009. “Property as Process: How Innovation Markets Select Innovation Regimes,” Yale Law Journal 119: 384–456.Google Scholar
Barzel, Yoram 1997. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berle, Adolf A. and Means, Gardiner C. 1991. The Modern Corporation & Private Property. Rev. edn. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Black, Bernard and Gervais, Simon 2010. “Incentives in the Market for Mortgage-Backed Securities,” working paper.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Boudewijn (ed.) 2010. Property Law and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, James W. 2010. “Security Interests, Creditors’ Priorities, and Bankruptcy,” in Bouckaert, (ed.), pp. 270–317.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. and Yoon, Yong J. 2000. “Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons,” Journal of Law and Economics 43: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien 2009. “Empire Building and Fiscal Illusion? An Empirical Study of Government Official Behaviors in Takings,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6(3): 541–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien 2012. “Tenancy in ‘Anticommons’? A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Co-Ownership,” Journal of Legal Analysis 4: 515–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien 2013. Private Property and Takings Compensation: Theoretical Framework and Empirical Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yun-chien and Fennell, Lee Anne 2014. “Partition and Revelation,” University of Chicago Law Review 81: 27–51.Google Scholar
Coase, R.H. 1988. The Firm, The Market, and The Law. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cournot, Augustin 1838. Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. New York: MacMillan (reprinted in 1897).Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch and Heller, Michael A. 2001. “The Liberal Commons,” Yale Law Journal 110: 549–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, David A. 2010. “The Foreclosure Crisis and the Antifragmentation Principle in State Property Law,” University of Chicago Law Review 77: 97–120.Google Scholar
Davidson, Nestor M. 2008. “Standardization and Pluralism in Property Law,” Vanderbilt Law Review 61: 1597–1664.Google Scholar
Davidson, Nestor M. and Dyal-Chand, Rashmi 2010. “Property in Crisis,” Fordham Law Review 78: 1607–60.Google Scholar
Demsetz, Harold 1967. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 57: 347–59.Google Scholar
Depoorter, Ben and Parisi, Francesco 2003. “Fragmentation of Property Rights: A Functional Interpretation of the Law of Servitudes,” Global Jurist Frontiers 3(1): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depoorter, Ben and Vanneste, Sven 2006. “Putting Humpty Dumpty Back Together: Experimental Evidence of Anticommons Tragedies,” Journal of Law, Economics and Policy 3: 1–23.Google Scholar
Dooley, Michael P. 1992. “Two Models of Corporate Governance,” Business Lawyer 47: 461–527.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Avihay 2011. “Property and Collective Undertaking: The Principle of Numerus Clausus,” University of Toronto Law Journal 61: 467–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubord, David R. 1980. “Time-Share Condominiums: Property's Fourth Dimension,” Maine Law Review 32: 181–236.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 1973. “Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land Use Controls,” University of Chicago Law Review 40: 681–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C 1993. “Property in Land,” Yale Law Journal 102: 1315–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C 2010. The Household: Informal Order Around the Hearth. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C 2011. “Two Cheers for the Bundle of Sticks Metaphor, Three Cheers for Merrill and Smith,” Econ Journal Watch 8: 215–22.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 1982. “Notice and Freedom of Contract in the Law of Servitudes,” Southern California Law Review 66: 1353–68.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A 2011. “Heller's Gridlock Economy in Perspective: Why There is Too Little, Not Too Much Private Property,” Arizona Law Review 53: 51–82.Google Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne 2006. “Efficient Trespass: The Case for ‘Bad Faith’ Adverse Possession,” Northwestern University Law Review 100: 1037–96.Google Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne 2008. “Homeownership 2.0,” Northwestern University Law Review 102: 1047–1118.Google Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne 2009. The Unbounded Home: Property Values Beyond Property Lines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne 2011. “Commons, Anticommons, Semicommons,” in Ayotte, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne 2012. “Lumpy Property,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160: 1955–1993.Google Scholar
Fennell, Lee Anne 2013. “The Problem of Resource Access,” Harvard Law Review 126: 1471–1531.Google Scholar
Garnett, Nicole Stelle 2001. “On Castles and Commerce: Zoning Law and the Home-Business Dilemma,” William & Mary Law Review 42: 1191–1244.Google Scholar
Hansmann, Henry and Kraakman, Reinier 2000. “The Essential Role of Organizational Law,” Yale Law Journal 110: 387–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmann, Henry and Kraakman, Reinier 2002. “Property, Contract, and Verification: The Numerus Clausus Problem and the Divisibility of Rights,” Journal of Legal Studies 31: S373–S420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmann, Henry and Mattei, Ugo 1998. “The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis,” New York University Law Review 73: 434–79.Google Scholar
Heller, Michael A. 1998. “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in Transition from Marx to Markets,” Harvard Law Review 111: 621–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Michael A. 1999. “The Boundaries of Private Property,” Yale Law Journal 108: 1163–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Michael A. 2008. The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation and Costs Lives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Heller, Michael A. 2011. “The Anticommons Lexicon,” in Ayotte, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Heller, Michael A. and Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 1998. “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,” Science 280: 698–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, Michael C. and Meckling, William H. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, Kathryn 2012. “Fragmentation Nodes: A Study in Financial Innovation, Complexity, and Systemic Risk,” Stanford Law Review 64: 657–725.Google Scholar
Kelly, Daniel B. 2006. “The ‘Public Use’ Requirement in Eminent Domain Law: A Rationale Based on Secret Purchases and Private Influence,” Cornell Law Review 92: 1–65.Google Scholar
Kelly, Daniel B. 2011. “Acquiring Land Through Eminent Domain: Justifications, Limitations, and Alternatives,” in Ayotte, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 344–71.Google Scholar
Kelly, Daniel B. 2014. “The Right to Include,” Emory Law Journal 63: 857–924.Google Scholar
Kieff, F. Scott and Paredes, Troy A. 2007. “Engineering a Deal: Toward a Private Ordering Solution to the Anticommons Problem,” Boston College Law Review 48: 111–48.Google Scholar
Lametti, David 2013. “The Concept of the Anticommons: Useful, or Ubiquitous and Unnecessary?” in Howe, Helena R. and Griffiths, Jonathan (eds.), Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law. Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–57.Google Scholar
Levinson, Daryl 2000. “Making Government Pay: Markets, Politics, and the Allocation of Constitutional Costs,” University of Chicago Law Review 67: 345–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna 2003. “The Objectivity of Well-Being and the Objectives of Property Law,” New York University Law Review 78: 1669–1754.Google Scholar
Libecap, Gary D. 1989. Contracting for Property Rights. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lueck, Dean and Miceli, Thomas J. 2007. “Property: Leases,” in Polinsky, A. Mitchell and Shavell, Steven (eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 217–23.Google Scholar
Manne, Henry G. 1967. “Our Two Corporation Systems: Law and Economics,” Virginia Law Review 53: 259–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McChesney, Fred S. 2006. “Coase, Demsetz, and the Unending Externality Debate,” Cato Journal 26: 179–200.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. 1986. “The Economics of Public Use,” Cornell Law Review 72: 61–116.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. 2012. Property: Principles and Policies. 2nd edn. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry 1963. “Policy, Autonomy, and the Numerus Clausus in Italian and American Property Law,” American Journal of Comparative Law 12: 224–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, Christina 2013. “A Numerus Clausus Principle for Intellectual Property,” Tennessee Law Review 80: 235–90.Google Scholar
Murray Fiona, and Stern, Scott 2007. “Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-commons Hypothesis,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 648–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, Jonathan Remy and Stern, Stephanie M. 2010. “Property Frames,” Washington University Law Review 87: 449–503.Google Scholar
Note 2012. “The Perils of Fragmentation and Reckless Innovation,” Harvard Law Review 125: 1799–1821.Google Scholar
Parisi, Francesco 2002. “Entropy in Property,” American Journal of Comparative Law 50: 595–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parisi, Francesco 2003. “Freedom of Contract and the Laws of Entropy,” Supreme Court Economic Review 10: 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienaar, G.J. 2010. Sectional Titles and Other Fragmented Property Schemes. Cape Town: Juta.Google Scholar
Peirce, Ellen R. and Mann, Richard A. 1983. “Time-Share Interests in Real Estate: A Critical Evaluation of the Regulatory Environment,” Notre Dame Law Review 59: 9–60.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2006. “Common-Law Economic Torts: An Economic and Legal Analysis,” Arizona Law Review 48: 735–47.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2011. Economic Analysis of Law. 8th edn. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane 1982. “Property and Personhood,” Stanford Law Review 34: 957–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudden, Bernard 1987. “Economic Theory v. Property Law: The Numerus Clausus Problem,” in Eekelaar, John and Bell, John (eds.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 239–363.Google Scholar
Schulz, Norbert, Parisi, Francesco, and Depoorter, Ben 2003. “Fragmentation in Property: Towards a General Model,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 158: 594–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarcz, Steven L. 2012. “Structuring Responsibility in Securitization Transactions,” Capital University Law Review 40: 803–19.Google Scholar
Scott, Austin Wakeman, Fratcher, William Franklin, and Ascher, Mark L. 2006. Scott and Ascher on Trusts. 5th edn. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven 2004. Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitkoff, Robert H. 2004. “An Agency Costs Theory of Trust Law,” Cornell Law Review 89: 621–84.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2004. “Property and Property Rules,” New York University Law Review 79: 1719–98.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. 2011. “Standardization in Property Law,” in Ayotte, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 148–73.Google Scholar
Stake, Jeffrey E. 1988. “Toward an Economic Understanding of Touch and Concern,” Duke Law Journal 1988: 925–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stake, Jeffrey E. 1990. “Darwin, Donations, and the Illusion of Dead Hand Control,” Tulane Law Review 64: 705–81.Google Scholar
Stake, Jeffrey E. 2010. “Decomposition of Property Rights,” in Bouckaert, (ed.), pp. 126–60.Google Scholar
Sterk, Stewart E. 1988. “Foresight and the Law of Servitudes,” Cornell Law Review 73: 956–70.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×