2622 research outputs found
Sort by
PREVIEW; Keefe v. Kirkegard: \u3cem\u3eConstitutional Implications of Sentencing a Juvenile to Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkPanel No. 1 – Real Problems for Real Consumers
No full textPanel No. 1 – Real Problems for Real Consumers
Moderated by Chuck Munson
Rob Farris-Olsen & Kim Wilson – Morrow v. Bank of America and the Further Development of Consumer Law in Montana
Meirav Furth-Matzkin – Consumer Contracts in Action
Laura N. Coordes – Unmasking the Consumer Privacy Ombudsmen
Creola Johnson – Debt Relief Scams in the 21st Centur
PREVIEW; Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court: \u3cem\u3eCan Corporations ‘Have It Their Way’ Under\u3c/em\u3e Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz \u3cem\u3eand Specific Jurisdiction Jurisprudence?\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkPREVIEW; Gallatin Wildlife Association v. United States Forest Service: \u3cem\u3ePublic Influence in Administrative Discretion\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkEstate Planning Choice of Wealth Management Entity: The Limited Partnership As An Alternative To The Trust
Full text linkThe substantial and steady increases in the amount a taxpayer can transfer free of federal estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer taxes1 makes transfer tax planning irrelevant when counseling more than 99.9% of Americans.2 Traditional estate planning structures set in place at a time when the estate tax impacted many more Americans may no longer achieve a client’s current estate planning goals. The seismic shift in the estate planning paradigm requires estate planners rethink use of planning structures in light of shifting client objectives. Evaluated in terms of these shifting objectives, the limited partnership may prove just as nimble as the trust in reacting to altered goals of affluent clients who desire continued management as assets pass to the next generation. This Article explores the continued viability and new role the limited partnership can take in estate planning.
This Article takes a closer look at the limited partnership as an alternative to the trust. After summarizing the shift in client perspective and objectives in part two, this Article analyzes specific characteristics of the limited partnership important to achieving those goals in comparison to the trust; in part three, it reveals the general partner, much like a trustee, can provide management of partnership assets and determine the timing and appropriateness of distributions to interest holders. The limited partnership, further, can provide some protection of assets from the immediate reach of a limited partner’s creditors. It also can minimize income tax burdens when compared to a trust. The limited partnership can meet these client preferences and, at the same time, avoid certain downsides of trusts, such as more stringent investment duties and hurdles faced in trust modification. The analysis reveals that the characteristics of the limited partnership, as compared to a trust, make it a viable choice for affluent clients
PREVIEW: Vote Solar v. Montana Department of Public Service Regulation: \u3cem\u3eStandards of Review for Decisions Under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkCreative Destruction: Copyright\u27s Fair Use Doctrine and the Moral Right of Integrity
Full text linkThis Paper explores the role of copyright’s fair use doctrine as a limit on the moral right of integrity. The moral right of integrity gives an author the right to prevent any distortion, modification, or mutilation of their work that prejudices their honor or reputation. Actions that have been found to violate an author’s moral right of integrity include, for instance, altering a mural by painting clothing over nude figures, selling separated panels of a single work of art, and displaying sculptures with holiday ribbons. At the same time, copyright’s fair use doctrine allows follow-on creators to transform original works by altering the original work with new expression, meaning, or message. While the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) includes language explicitly making the right of integrity “[s]ubject to” copyright’s fair use doctrine under § 107, there have been no decisions in the United States interpreting how the doctrine might apply to a moral right of integrity claim. The lack of case law interpreting how courts might balance an author’s moral right of integrity with the public’s rights to expression is particularly troubling in light of the ongoing discussion to expand moral rights in the United States. If moral rights are to be expanded, most interest- or industry-groups and commentators agree that those rights must be subject to fair use. However, without any guidance from courts, and with commentators and legislative history doubting the compatibility of fair use with the right of integrity, how can the United States expand moral rights with the assumption that fair use would provide the proper balance between authors’ rights and the public’s rights? This Paper illustrates different contexts in visual art where a follow-on creator distorts, mutilates, or modifies an author’s work in order to make an artistic, social, or political statement, and how the doctrine of fair use might limit the moral right of integrity in those contexts. It argues that copyright’s fair use doctrine can serve as a limitation on an author’s moral right of integrity and illustrates how the four fair use factors in § 107 may be used to balance the author’s right of integrity with the public’s rights to find fair use where a follow-on creator modifies, distorts, or mutilates an author’s work to transform the work and give the work new meaning
