Property, Seventh Edition [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

Dukeminier has the unique gift of making even simple topics as opaque as possible. You will need supplements, lots of them, because of the awful way this book is structured, cases chosen, the odd phrasing and, in particular, how future interests are presented. Want proof - Look at "Acing Property" supplement where they give you a special appendix for the way Dukeminier presents things, particularly Rule Against Perpetuities - something already too complicated on its own that Duke manages to foul up further. I really wish law professors would destroy the forced demand for this terrible (more so than most prop casebooks, and achievement in itself) text.

As someone else already noted, if you're here, it's because the book was assigned and you have to buy it. But in the slim chance some professor out there is reading this and trying to make a decision, I'll just say this book is terrible. Of course, I can only compare it to other casebooks I have used this year, but this is by far the worst. A few of the main issues:

1. Unedited Cases - As others have noted, the cases could be edited down substantially to isolate relevant legal issues. The failure to do this results not only in wasted time (the enemy of the law student), but also confusion. The confusion arises because a case will include discussion of ancillary issues to the resolution of the case that are discussed elsewhere in the chapter (frequently later) in greater depth, and there's no contextualization about which is the majority, outdated, etc. Because they are often irrelevant to the "point" of the case, this confusion and delay could be easily avoided through more judicious editing. (Also, there are a lot of "throat-clearing" cases, which just announce a new rule. Editors, here's an idea: instead of wasting my time by making me read 6-8 pages of bull, why not just provide a paragraph explaining the historical development, policy, and the new rule? Oh yeah, because the more pages, the more we pay.).

2. "Notes" - I suppose the authors deserve some credit for attempting to do what many casebooks don't by occasionally providing brief snippets explaining black letter law. But it was almost as if the authors just couldn't bring themselves to complete this pedagogical sacrilege, and the result is confusing passages which obliquely discuss legal issues without offering satisfactory or even organized explanations. The entire tone of these passages can best be described as "coy." My advice would be to just read the real thing: an actual treatise designed to be helpful, rather than "prodding" (read: confusing).

3. "Problems" - Closely related to the "notes" are the problems, which are simply infuriating. The book will pose a question, which you are quite justifiably incapable of answering, because it applies some doctrine or exception which you have not yet learned, or reaches a novel conclusion. And instead of offering an explanation, the vast, vast majority of these questions taunt you by directing you to a case dealing with the issue, usually without a parenthetical explanation. Let me put this simply: there is no way I am going to use what limited spare time I have in law school to go read an unassigned case just to get an answer that is put plainly in a hornbook or E&E.

In conclusion, this book is terrible. For an example of a well-done text, check out Glannon and Raven-Hansen's new CivPro book.

This is the worst casebook I've had thus far in law school. The authors make a habit of introducing terms and concepts without explanation, causing you to flip back and look (in vain) to see where you missed the explanation. Then, a couple pages later they explain the term or concept, and you realize that when they first mentioned it, you weren't supposed to know what it was yet. If that seems like a terrible way to structure a book to you, then you're right, and I agree.

Let me explain a different way: Concept A is introduced and explained. In the explanation the authors distinguish concept A from concept B. Of course, concept B has not been explained yet so the distinction they draw means nothing to you. You wonder if maybe you missed the page where they explained concept B because this is the first time you are seeing it. You look for it in the previous pages but can't find it. So you keep going: Concept A is explained further, an example is given, and then concept B is explained. After you read the explanation of concept B you can go back and re-read the distinction they drew, which will now make much more sense.

There is also, a complete lack of summary or conclusion following each topic, sub-topic, or chapter. Even a list of the rules, terms, and concepts covered in that particular section, appearing at the end of the section, would be extremely useful. Property, arguably more so than other 1st year law classes, has its own extensive language. Most of this language was developed in medieval times based on antiquated concepts with no link to contemporary times. The meaning of most terms cannot be arrived at intuitively. A list of terms with definitions would be a useful tool to have at the end of each topic/chapter. So, lacking that, take really good notes while you read. Otherwise you will find yourself searching back though the dense, structurally obtuse text to find the inwoven italicized words that "highlight" important terms.

My other issue with the book has to do with the review problems. These problems are probably the best way to gain mastery over the material. There are far too few of them, and no answers or explanations are provided for the vast majority of them. This is probably the publisher's decision though; Aspen wishes to sell you a separate problem book. Cha-ching.

This is the only property casebook I have ever read, but compared to my casebooks from other classes, the material on property law that I have found online, and my general knowledge of instructional writing, this book does a poor job at teaching property.