3,287 research outputs found
Letter from Cy Donner to Michi Weglyn, June 2, 1967
No full textA letter from Cy Donner to Michi Weglyn encouraging her to come out to California to talk to producers about two shows called "Youthquake" and "Pretty Talk".These materials are from box 73 and 74 of the Frank Chin Papers. The Frank Chin Papers contain personal and professional correspondence between Frank Chin and Michi Weglyn relating to particular projects on which either author was working as well as files related to the Day of Remembrance Tribute to Michi Weglyn
The application of cy-pres doctrine in the Malaysian law of charity / Ibrahim Hashim
No full textSince time immemorial Charities have played a positive role in society. Charities encourage private philanthrophy and the public receive various forms of return from the voluntary contribution. Besides that, charities harness talent, time and kindness of the people with different skills and sensitivity then would be possible. But unfortunately, the law being what it is has not been able to respond adequately. The writer is of the opinion that only by legislation canan effective and orderly development of law of charity and doctrine of cy-pres be achieved. The aim of this paper therefore is manifold, viz:(i) to study the existing corpus juris directly relatingto the law of charity particularly, cy-pres,(ii) to evaluate the court's decisions in the context of local setting,(iii) to make several case-studies of cy-pres doctrine in trust deed incorporation, and(iv) to make statutory recommendation
Class Action Settlements, Cy Pres Awards, and the Erie Doctrine
No full textAs class action settlement funds become more and more prevalent, cy pres awards have become a more common means of providing relief to absent class members. The primary purpose of cy pres awards is to provide a second-best form of relief when it is deemed impossible to directly compensate individual plaintiffs. Most often, these cy pres awards are given to some kind of charitable organization. Under federal law, class action settlements and cy pres awards are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Rule 23(e)(2) requires all class action settlements to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” but provides no further guidance. Thus, federal courts look to judge-made standards to determine the validity of a cy pres award. Numerous states have codified cy pres laws with specific requirements into their statutory schemes. Every state has an unclaimed property law. Both the state cy pres statutes and unclaimed property laws may conflict with federal law. This Note will examine how a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction would and should respond where state and federal law conflict. In so doing, it will discuss the interplay of cy pres doctrine, the Erie doctrine, the Rules of Decision Act, and the Rules Enabling Act. This Note concludes by examining the proposal by the Rule 23 Subcommittee on Civil Rules to codify cy pres in Rule 23(e) and the Subcommittee’s subsequent withdrawal of the amendment. This conduct bolsters the conclusions that that a Rules Enabling Act analysis is more appropriate for these cy pres questions, and that federal cy pres awards may indeed violate the Rules Enabling Act
Confusing Cy Près
No full textAmerican courts have increasingly considered the possibility of prolonging the life of charitable trusts through cy près and the closely related doctrine of equitable deviation. This requires courts to interpret the material purposes of trusts and even the administrative terms on which settlors of charitable trusts condition gifts in trust made for public benefit. Yet, the implicit reasons why courts might invoke cy près to change a charitable trust’s material purpose have not been explored in significant depth heretofore—and neither has a common but vexing trend of courts conflating cy près with deviation, which negatively impacts charitable trust-making.
I analyze the extent to which judges have struggled with applying these remedies via an empirical analysis of a universe of cases receiving a published opinion from an American court from the nation’s founding through 2019. This study provides an original analysis of the cy près doctrine, including its use and misuse, along an extended timeline in American history. The study’s novel contributions are twofold. First, it teases out the distinction between cy près and like equitable doctrines. In doing so, it elucidates how courts confuse cy près with other equitable remedies. Second, it discusses the sources of the confusion around the cy près and deviation doctrines by empirically testing the factors that bear on a court’s decision to employ them accurately or inaccurately. These findings have implications not only for resolving the boundaries of the cy près doctrine, while encouraging charitable trust-making, but also for defining the critical role that judges play in shaping both the cy près doctrine and trust settlors’ expectations in the past, in the present, and for the future
THE CY PRES DOCTRINE AND CHANGING PHILOSOPHIES
No full textThe cy pres doctrine arose so far back in antiquity that its origins are obscure. Apparently it was known and used in Roman law, for an application of the cy pres doctrine is reported in the Digest of Justinian. In the early part of the third century a city received a legacy bequeathed for the purpose of commemorating the memory of the donor by using the income of the legacy to hold yearly games. As such games were illegal at that time a problem arose concerning the disposition of the legacy. Modestinus, a well known jurist, found the solution
Reforming Cy Pres Reform
No full textIn this Article, Professor Atkinson examines the movement among legal scholars to reform the ancient doctrine of cy pres, by which courts use their equitable powers to modify the use of charitable trust assets when the original purposes of the trusts become impossible to carry out. Traditional cy pres doctrine strikes a balance between donors\u27 perpetual control over the use of their wealth (for charitable purposes) and broad judicial discretion to modify the charitable purpose of the trust. Professor Atkinson first describes the dilemmas posed by traditional cy pres reform. Because they work within this bipolar framework, reformers\u27 efforts to inject flexibility into cy pres inevitably increase either dead hand control or state involvement, destabilizing the balance between the two.
As a solution to this dilemma the Article suggests a third option: leaving the disposition of charitable assets to the discretion of their trustees. Professor Atkinson argues that legal enforcement of dead hand control is not as critical as reformers have assumed, and that the notion of charitable efficiency-the standard by which reformers hope to strengthen the courts\u27 powers to modify charitable trusts-is inadequate. Finally, he demonstrates the political and economic benefits of placing control over trust assets with trustees, and then addresses potential problems with his proposal
A Revaluation of Cy Press Redux
No full textWith its enactment in 2, Section 413 of the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) introduced the most recent, and important, revision to a court\u27s cy pres power since the nineteenth century. Section 413 expands the court\u27s power to redistribute the assets of failing charitable trusts by transforming one of the traditional elements of cy pres into a presumption, abandoning the traditional cy pres redistribution standard, and providing an additional justification for the exercise of the power. Although scholars have scrutinized other portions of the UTC, the UTC\u27s reconfigured cy pres has failed to provoke scholarly discussion even though it has been adopted by twenty-one jurisdictions. Notably, the vacuum of scholarly examination of UTC Section 413 intersects what has been described as “the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history.” Estimates suggest that charities alone stand to receive up to $24.8 trillion over the next several decades and some of those assets will undoubtedly be held in charitable trusts. Thus, the merger of UTC Section 413 with the massive wealth transfer over the next decades means that courts will wield increasing power to redistribute enormous sums of charitable resources as the objectives of some charitable trusts become obsolete in the future. This Article fills that scholarly void by subjecting the modifications to cy pres introduced by the UTC to a critical evaluation and offers a view of the UTC\u27s cy pres that is contrary to its perceived acceptance. The Article begins by outlining the evolution of cy pres in England and the United States through the promulgation of the UTC to highlight the substantial differences between the UTC\u27s cy pres and its traditional ancestor. The historical shift represented by UTC Section 413 tilts the theoretical balance of interests too far toward the public interest and fails to fulfill its underlying goal of promoting efficient use of scare resources. To counter these theoretical and efficiency concerns, the Article proposes replacing the UTC\u27s presumption of general charitable intent with a presumption of specific charitable *138 intent. Although presuming specific charitable intent is likely to result in an increase in cy pres denials, presuming specific charitable intent benefits charity generally by increasing the number of charities that will receive assets via cy pres without any loss in efficiency. In the end, a presumption of specific charitable intent not only serves as a counterweight to the trend of increasing paternalism associated with charity law, but also ultimately benefits the public by reducing litigation costs
Note lexicographique : cy-près
No full textDans le Code civil du Québec de 1994, le législateur québécois innove en adoptant le concept original de patrimoine d’affectation pour réguler la fiducie. Cette notion rompt avec les conceptions classiques du droit civil et n’a presque rien à voir avec le trust de la common law. Cette nouveauté apporte avec elle un ensemble de notions, dont certaines sont nouvelles, d’autres empruntées, et d’autres encore, mixtes. Le texte qui suit a pour objet de souligner l’importation dans le droit civil québécois d’un terme de la common law, emprunté par celle-ci au français médiéval. Il s’agit du terme cy-près, qui, pris littéralement et métaphoriquement, désigne un pouvoir conféré au tribunal pour lui permettre de rediriger les objectifs d’une fducie caritative lorsque les buts initialement établis deviennent impossibles à accomplir. La doctrine de cy-près de la common law permet au tribunal de rediriger la fiducie vers des buts aussi près que possible des fins initialement visées. Ainsi le terme cy-près fait son entrée lexicale et conceptuelle dans la langue française contemporaine par l’entremise du droit civil québécois. Sur le plan conceptuel, la doctrine de cy-près reste à être élaborée pour en établir les ressemblances et les dissemblances avec la doctrine de cy-près de la common law.In the 1994 Civil Code of Québec, the Québec legislator innovated by adopting the original appropriated patrimony concept in order to regulate trusts. This notion breaks with classic civil law concepts and almost has nothing to do with the common law trust. This innovation trails in its wake a set of notions, some new, others borrowed, and still others hybrid. In the following paper, our purpose is to underscore the importing into Québec civil law of a common law term, which in turn was borrowed by common law advocates from medieval French. The term “Cy-près”, when taken literally and metaphorically, designates a power conferred upon the court enabling it to re-direct the purposes of a charitable trust when those initially established have become impossible. Under the common law Doctrine of Cy-près, the court may re-direct the trust towards another purpose as near as possible to that prescribed by the truster. Be that as it may, this is how cy-près has made its lexical and conceptual début in modern-day French via the rear-door entry of Québec civil law. From the conceptual standpoint, the civil law Cy-près Doctrine still must be further explored in order to delimit the similitudes and differences with the Doctrine of Cy-près under the common law
Confusing Cy Près
No full textAmerican courts have increasingly considered the possibility of prolonging the life of charitable trusts through cy près and the closely related doctrine of equitable deviation. This requires courts to interpret the material purposes of trusts and even the administrative terms on which settlors of charitable trusts condition gifts in trust made for public benefit. Yet, the implicit reasons why courts might invoke cy près to change a charitable trust’s material purpose have not been explored in significant depth heretofore—and neither has a common but vexing trend of courts conflating cy près with deviation, which negatively impacts charitable trust-making.
I analyze the extent to which judges have struggled with applying these remedies via an empirical analysis of a universe of cases receiving a published opinion from an American court from the nation’s founding through 2019. This study provides an original analysis of the cy près doctrine, including its use and misuse, along an extended timeline in American history. The study’s novel contributions are twofold. First, it teases out the distinction between cy près and like equitable doctrines. In doing so, it elucidates how courts confuse cy près with other equitable remedies. Second, it discusses the sources of the confusion around the cy près and deviation doctrines by empirically testing the factors that bear on a court’s decision to employ them accurately or inaccurately. These findings have implications not only for resolving the boundaries of the cy près doctrine, while encouraging charitable trust-making, but also for defining the critical role that judges play in shaping both the cy près doctrine and trust settlors’ expectations in the past, in the present, and for the future
Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink: Behavioural Modification, Cy-pres Distributions and Class Actions
No full textJurisdictions that have created class action regimes provide as one of their justifications the promotion of behavioural modification or deterrence of wrongdoers. Peculiar to some class action regimes is the phenomenon of cy-pres distributions, in which the class counsel and judge choose a form of distribution for class members. The justification for cy-pres distributions is to ensure that a defendant receives nothing back from the monetary award and is thereby required to internalize the true cost of wrongdoing, or to disgorge the profits of wrongdoing. The cy-pres remedy is seen as furthering the deterrence function of class actions. I argue that it is difficult to find empirical evidence to substantiate the claim of behavioural modification in class action litigation. However, if courts are serious about deterrence, then I suggest that reorienting the focus of cy-pres distributions to properly account for behavioural modification may provide a better chance of that outcome. Debate over the function of cy-pres distributions and deterrence in class actions occurs at a time when within the law of remedies there is increasing evidence which demonstrates that plaintiff sometimes prefer other remedial outcomes than slavish adherence to compensable damages. A collateral benefit to a realignment of cy-pres distributions along the lines I suggest may in fact make a better fit with what class members may really want by way of a remedy
- …
