信托责任被打破

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Trusts & Trustees Pub Date : 2021-10-06 DOI:10.1093/tandt/ttab080
Robert Flannigan
{"title":"信托责任被打破","authors":"Robert Flannigan","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttab080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The law of fiduciary accountability has for some time been harried by the misinformed assertions and suppositions of various judges and writers. The numerous misconceptions increased the risk that the conventional understanding of the jurisdiction would collapse. That has now happened. The Supreme Court unconsciously (or consciously) rejected its own jurisprudence to reshape the conventional regulation into an extensive judicial power to assess the merits of the good faith actions of fiduciaries.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fiduciary accountability shattered\",\"authors\":\"Robert Flannigan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tandt/ttab080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The law of fiduciary accountability has for some time been harried by the misinformed assertions and suppositions of various judges and writers. The numerous misconceptions increased the risk that the conventional understanding of the jurisdiction would collapse. That has now happened. The Supreme Court unconsciously (or consciously) rejected its own jurisprudence to reshape the conventional regulation into an extensive judicial power to assess the merits of the good faith actions of fiduciaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一段时间以来,信托责任法一直被各种法官和作家的错误断言和假设所困扰。许多误解增加了对管辖权的传统理解崩溃的风险。现在已经发生了。最高法院无意识地(或有意识地)驳回了自己的判例,将传统法规重塑为一种广泛的司法权力,以评估受托人善意行为的是非曲直。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fiduciary accountability shattered
The law of fiduciary accountability has for some time been harried by the misinformed assertions and suppositions of various judges and writers. The numerous misconceptions increased the risk that the conventional understanding of the jurisdiction would collapse. That has now happened. The Supreme Court unconsciously (or consciously) rejected its own jurisprudence to reshape the conventional regulation into an extensive judicial power to assess the merits of the good faith actions of fiduciaries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
66.70%
发文量
92
期刊最新文献
CC14 guidance update: greener investments, greater uncertainty? Australian tax arrangements for trusts: Section 100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (1936) Cth Fathers, daughters, and matters of trust In brief An analysis of the risks that arise for discretionary trust settlements in the event of a divorce: to what extent does the Family Court’s asset division approach undermine discretionary trusts?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1