Search

The article presents a comment on the Rock-Koshkonong Lake District v. State Department of Natural Resources case. The comment argues that in reaching its decision, the majority in Rock-Koshkonong departed from precedent in narrowing the public trust doctrine, confused the issue of ownership with regulation, and engaged in a strained analysis of the relation between the public trust doctrine and state police power.

Wisconsin has a particularly notable tradition of using the public trust doctrine aggressively to protect the state's natural resources. The general thrust of the doctrine's evolution in Wisconsin has been expansion beyond the doctrine's traditional application to waters navigable for commercial purposes. Emblematic of such expansion is the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Just v. Marinette County, which scholars have characterized as a landmark extension of the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. In light of this tradition, it is unsurprising that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent pronouncement that the Department of Natural Resources lacked public trust jurisdiction to regulate privately-owned wetlands adjacent to a navigable lake provoked strong reactions, not only by commentators but also by certain members of the court. This Comment asserts that the court's opinion in Rock-Koshkonong Lake District v. State Department of Natural Resources mischaracterized 150 years of precedent and, in doing so, misconstrued Wisconsin's public trust doctrine in a way that is potentially devastating to future use of the doctrine for environmental protection. By subtly re-casting the court's precedents as delimiting rather than expanding the state's public trust jurisdiction, the Rock-Koshkonong opinion undermines the particular adaptability of Wisconsin's public trust doctrine, which has allowed the doctrine to evolve along with societal values and public needs, and which, for decades, has situated Wisconsin as a leader in using the public trust doctrine for environmental protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the case of Public Trustee (Qld) v. Fortress Credit Corporation 11 Pty. Ltd., concerning the validity of the deed entered into by the appellant with the second lender. The appellant entered into a loan agreement with the first lender in 2007 and the performance of its obligations was guaranteed by the second lender in 2008. Factors considered by the Court of Appeal to dismiss the case are discussed. The appellant was also ordered to pay first lender's costs.

The article presents a court case ElecNet (Aust) Pty. Ltd. v FCT reagrding unit trust for the public trading trust rules. It mentions that ElecNet (Aust) Pty Ltd (ElecNet) is the corporate trustee of the Electrical Industry Severance Scheme(EISS). It also mentions the working of public unit trust such as investment in land for rental purposes and investment or trading in loans.