Joshua Tate
Joshua Tate's research and teaching focus on legal history, property, and trusts and estates. He has been a full-time faculty member at SMU Dedman School of Law since the fall of 2005, and was a visiting assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in the spring of 2008. In the fall of 2012, he was a Lloyd M. Robbins Senior Research Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley. He is an Academic Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, serves as the Selden Society's Honorary Treasurer for the U.S.A., co-chairs the Uniform Acts for Trust and Estate Law Committee for the ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section, and is a past chair of the Sutherland Prize Committee for the American Society for Legal History. In August 2015, he was elected as a Miembro de Honor by the Comité Ejecutivo de la Abogacía Colombiana. He has given invited presentations at numerous academic conferences, colloquia, and workshops both in the United States and abroad. From 2013 to 2015, he gave a series of more than sixty lectures in North and South America, Africa, Asia, and Europe in commemoration of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. He is currently engaged in a study of the development of property rights and remedies in medieval England, focusing on issues of jurisdictional conflict with regard to rights of presentation to churches. He is admitted to practice in Texas and Connecticut.
Phone: 2147682791
Address: 3315 Daniel Ave., Dallas, TX 75205
Phone: 2147682791
Address: 3315 Daniel Ave., Dallas, TX 75205
less
Uploads
Papers
This commentary suggests a possible answer to that question. Although the problems with perpetuities were well known to learned inhabitants of all the newly independent American states, those problems were particularly salient in North Carolina in 1776 due to that colony’s unique history as a former proprietary colony. The decision by the heir of one of the original Lords Proprietors not to sell his share back to the British crown gave rise to specific grievances in North Carolina that did not exist in the other twelve former colonies. Moreover, North Carolina was unique in witnessing a violent confrontation between the colonial authorities and backcountry farmers that stemmed in part from those grievances. The peculiar case of the Earl Granville and assorted problems in his Granville District shifted the problem of perpetuities from the periphery to the center of North Carolina politics in the late eighteenth century, and made perpetuities warrant an explicit mention in the 1776 North Carolina Constitution and Declaration of Rights.
This commentary suggests a possible answer to that question. Although the problems with perpetuities were well known to learned inhabitants of all the newly independent American states, those problems were particularly salient in North Carolina in 1776 due to that colony’s unique history as a former proprietary colony. The decision by the heir of one of the original Lords Proprietors not to sell his share back to the British crown gave rise to specific grievances in North Carolina that did not exist in the other twelve former colonies. Moreover, North Carolina was unique in witnessing a violent confrontation between the colonial authorities and backcountry farmers that stemmed in part from those grievances. The peculiar case of the Earl Granville and assorted problems in his Granville District shifted the problem of perpetuities from the periphery to the center of North Carolina politics in the late eighteenth century, and made perpetuities warrant an explicit mention in the 1776 North Carolina Constitution and Declaration of Rights.