Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P39 ppsx

Hartford, he arrived in Litchfield, after marry- ing Sally Burr, daughter of President AARON BURR of Princeton and sister of Aaron Burr, the later VICE PRESIDENT. Until the Revolutionary War ended, there was very little civil business transacted in Litchfield County, and Reeve provided legal instruction in anticipation of the conclusion of the war and the resumption of ordinary business matters. This employment augmented his legal knowledge and proficiency and enabled him to commence in 1784 a systematic course of instruction in the law, including regular classes. The Litchfield Law School officially opened its doors to students in 1784 and continued in successful operation with annual graduating classes u ntil 18 33. Its catalog contained the names of 1,500 young men who prepared for the bar after 1798. Most graduates were admitted to the practice of law in the court at Litchfield. The roster of students prior to that date is inaccurate, but it is certain that there were at least 210. More than two-thirds of the students were from states other than Connecticut, with the original thirteen colonies amply represented. A lesser number of students came from states recently admitted to the Union. The greatest number who entered in any one year was 54 in 1813, when the law school apparently reached its zenith. Prominent statesmen and politicians, such as Aaron Burr and JOHN C. CALHOUN, studied law at Litchfield. Two of its graduates, HENRY BALDWIN and LEVI WOODBURY, became Supreme Court justices. In addition, fifteen U.S. senators, fifty members of Congress, five cabinet members, ten governors, 44 judges of state and lower federal courts, and seven foreign ministers graduated from the school. Georgia had the greatest number of distinguished graduates. The term of instruction at Litchfield was completed in 14 months, including two vaca- tions (spring and fall) of four weeks each. No students could be admitted for a period shorter than three months. In 1828 tui tion was $1 00 for the first year and $60 for the second year. The curriculum covered the entire body of the law. Tapping Reeve’s lectures referred to the law in general, with respect to the sources from which it is derived, such as customs or statutes, and analyzed the rules for the application and interpretation of each. Courses in REAL ESTATE, rights of persons, rights of things, contracts, torts, evidence, pleading, crimes, and EQUITY then followed. Each of these general subjects was treated under various SUBSIDIARY topics, in order to enhance the student’s comprehension of the subject matter and its relation to the actual practice of law. Reeve administered the school alone until 1798, when, after his election to the Supreme Court, he invited James Gould to become his associate. They jointly operated the school until 1820, when Judge Reeve withdrew. Gould continued the classes until 1833, with the assistance of Jabez W. Hunting- ton during the final year. The Litchfield Law School afforded an intensive LEGAL EDUCATION because there were not as many different highly developed areas of law as there are today. In 1784, there were no printed reports of decisions of any court in the United States. The English reports contained nearly the entire body of the law. During the tenure of the law school, thecommon-law system of pleading became so encumbered by nuances and fictions that it fell into disfavor. The renowned Rule s of Hilary Term were adopted in 1834 to rectify this situation. This development proved to be the forerunner of modern legal theories, such as the merger of law and equity and the desirability of short and plain statements of claims and defenses. FURTHER READINGS Litchfield Law School Web site. 2009. Available online at http://litchfieldlawschool.com/ (accessed September 6, 2009). Siegel, Andrew M. 1998. “‘To Learn and Make Respectable Hereafter’: The Litchfield Law School in Cultural Con- text.” New York Univ. Law Review 73, no. 6 (December). “Tapping Reeve and the Litchfield Law School.” 2009. State of Connecticut Judician Branch Law Libraries. Available online at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/LawLib/History/ tappingreeve.htm; website home page: http://www.jud. state.ct.us (accessed September 6, 2009). LITERAL CONSTRUCTION The determination by a court of the meaning of the language of a document by an examination of only the actual words used in it, without any consideration of the intent of the parties who signed the writing except for the fact that they chose the language now in dispute. CROSS REFERENCE Canons of Construction. LITERARY PROPERTY The interest of an author in an original and expressive composition, that entitles the author to GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 368 LITERAL CONSTRUCTION Should Biographers Be Allowed to Quote Unpublished Literary Property? T he protection of LITERARY PROPERTY by the federal copyright statute is intended to create economic incentives that induce authors to create and dis- seminate new works. A copyright is a reward to an author for making a contribution to society. Nevertheless, the author’s copyright MONOPOLY is not unlimited. The doctrine of fair use permits other authors to copy or adapt limited amounts of the copyrighted material without infringing the copy- right. Fair use allows someone other than the original author to make secondary use of a copyrighted work to create a new work. The creation of the new work is also viewed as a contribution to society. The competing interests of copyright and fair use have generated conflict over the quotation of unpublished works, primarily letters, by literary biographers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (1987), concluded that biographers cannot invoke fair use when dealing with unpublished letters. Defenders of the decision assert that it allows authors to control material they do not want published. Critics argue that this restrictive view of fair use ignores the legitimate need of biographers, his- torians, and other scholars to mine rich sources of unpublished material and present their findings to the public. Defenders of Salinger and its restric- tions on the quotation of unpublished works note that the purpose and charac- ter of the use of unpublished material are one factor in determining fair use. For example, though a literary biography is a work of criticism and scholarship, biographical works are generally pub- lished by commercial, for-profit busi- nesses. If previously unpublished material were used in such a book, the publisher would promote the book by emphasizing that it contained that material. Because biographies are written for profit, supporters of restrictions argue, biographers should not be entitled to any special consideration in determining fair use. A biographer is free to read unpub- lished letters and extract their factual content, but copying their author’s expression of particular facts is not, and should not be, permitted. The reader of the biography will still benefit from the new factual content. Therefore, it cannot be argued that banning the quotation of unpublished work defeats the advance- ment of knowledge and scholarship. Supporters of restrictions further contend that unpublished works deserve heightened protection because their authors have not yet commercially exploited them. If a biographer could quote generous selections from a series of letters, the potential market for and value of these unpublished letters would likely decrease. Even if the author asserts that he has no intention of publishing the letters, the law should preserve the author’s opportunity to sell the letters if a change of mind occurs. The author’s copyright must be protected to allow the author the first chance to reap an economic benefit. Critics of Salinger and its reasoning point out that unpublished letters are usually “public,” having been donated by the recipient to an academic or research library for scholarly use. It is unfair, charge the critics, to permit persons who can travel to an academic library holding the unpublished letters of a literary figure to read those letters, while denying the rest of the public the opportunity to learn more about the letter writer. Authors who write letters know that they surrender ownership of them when they send them. Furthermore, authors do not write letters for financial gain; they write them as a simple form of commu- nication with another individual. Critics of Salinger suggest that it should thus be fair use to quote from unpublished letters—while noting that it would not be fair use to quote from an unpublished novel or a short story without the author’s permission, since such a work is generally written for economic exploitation. Critics of the Salinger decision also argue that limiting biographers to recit- ing bland and brief digests of unpub- lished letters does not advance the public interest. They contend that the use of quotations is essential in literary bio- graphies, where the biographer seeks to compare the public author and the private person. The comparison of expression between published works and letters can reveal consistency and contradiction. Further, the use of the subject’s own thoughts and words demonstrates to the reader the complex relationship between art and life. These critics also dismiss the conclu- sion that quotations from letters will diminish the MARKET VALUE of the letters forfuturepublication.Theypointoutthat the publication of a literary biography generally sparks new interest in the subject and in the subject’s works, including a collection of letters. Because of this response in academe and the marketplace, critics contend that the biographer actually enhances the status of the subject. Critics also hold that the Salinger decision is motivated by privacy con- cerns. They note that if the author of unpublished letters does not wish to permit a biographer to investigate her life, a denial of permission to quote from the letters is an effective way of main- taining privacy. Critics are more troubled by grants of permission to quote that are accompanied by the requirement that the manuscript cannot be published without approval of the subject. Critics maintain that a subject’s power to control the content of a book is antithetical to the promotion of scholarship and to the public purposes of copyright. CROSS REFERENCE Privacy. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LITERARY PROPERTY 369 the exclusive use and profit thereof, with no interest vested in any other individual. The corporal property in which an intellectual production is embodied. The concept of literature as property grew from the notion that literary works have value, and that writers deserve legal protection from unauthorized use of their work by others. Before the fifteenth century, writing generally was an activity performed for royalty and organized RELIGION, and literature was not considered a commodity. With the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century, along with a societal trend away from royal and religious control, literature came to be seen as an item of value that could be bought and sold. As literature became a commodity, the law slowly moved to protect the economic interests of writers. In England the Statute of Anne was passed by Parliament in 1710 to limit the MONOPOLY of rights that publishers held over writers. Similar copyright laws migrated to the American colonies, and comprehensive federal copyright statu tes now regulate the right to own and sell LITERARY PROPERTY in the United States. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, copyrights to literary property now vest auto- matically in the author as soon as the work is affixed to a TANGIBLE medium. A precise definition of literary property is elusive. According to Eaton S. Drone, an influential nineteenth-century TREATISE writer, there is no literary property in thoughts, conceptions, ideas, sentiments, etc., apart from their association…. their arrangement and combination in a definite form constitute an intellectual production, a literary composition, which has a distinct being capable of identification and separate ownership, and possessing the essential attributes of property. The property is not in the simple thoughts, ideas, etc., but in what is produced by their association. (A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions in Great Britain and the United States [1879]) Ultimately, lawmakers have left the job of determining what constitutes literary property to the courts, which have fashioned some general guidelines. Not all literature qualifies as literary property. Furthermore, not all the content in a piece of literary property can receive protec- tion from copying or use by other authors. Only the original expressive content of a piece of literature qualifies as literary property. Mere ideas generally do not constitute literary property. For example, the idea of writing a novel set in Okefenokee Swamp, in Georgia, is not literary property. But if a person writes such a novel, the expressive content of the novel is literary property, and the auth or owns the rights to that property. After the novel is published and sold, another person may write a book set in Okefenokee Swamp. However, the writer of the second book may not use the original expressions, characters, and sequence of events created by the author of the first book. No bright line distinguishes protected and unprotected characters and story lines. Rather, courts place these elements on a continuum from sim ple to complex. On this continuum general qualit ies and emotional features do not receive copyright protection. However, the more a character or story is developed, the more it comes to constitute literary property, and the more copyright protection it receives. A determination of copyright INFRINGEMENT also can depend on the degree of similarity between the literary property and subsequent literary works. For example, assume that a novelist has developed a character named Hijinks, a lovable pool cleaner who moonlights as a private detective and drinks only papaya juice. This is a well-defined character, so it is the property of the novelist and no one may copy it without permission. If a second author writes and sells a book that features a private detective who cleans pools part-time, this would probably not be sufficient borrowing of an original expression to constitute copyright infringement. The second author may even give the pool- cleaning private eye a penchant for fruit juice and be safe from suit. However, if the second author’s main character is a papaya-juice drink- ing, pool-cleaning private detective named Hijinks, a judge or jury could find infringement and award damages to the first author. Before 1976 the term literary property was used to describe the author’s state of ownership prior to publication. When an author fixed a piece of literature in a tangible medium, such as on paper or on an audiotape, the author owned the work forever and could exclude others from using it forever. Once the author published the work, the work became governed by copyright laws, which granted exclusive rights to the author for a fixed term of years. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 370 LITERARY PROPERTY The effect of publication was eliminated by the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. Under this act all literary property is subject to STATUTORY provisions from the moment it is affixed in a tangible medium. The term literary property also can describe the tangible instrument that contains the words of a literary work. Novels, short stories, poems, plays, essays, letters, lectures, sermons, and songs are some basic forms of literary property. They can be contained on any tangible medium, including audiotape, videotap e, and paper. FURTHER READINGS de Grazia, Margreta. 1992. “Sanctioning Voice: Quotation Marks, the Abolition of Torture, and the Fifth Amend- ment.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 10. Diviney, Catherine A. 1986. “Guardian of the Public Interest: An Alternative Application of the Fair Use Doctrine in Salinger v. Random House, Inc.” St. John’s Law Review 61. Jaszi, Peter. 1991. “Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of ‘Authorship’. “Duke Law Journal. Available online at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/ 91jasz1.html; website home page: http://cyber.law. harvard.edu (accessed August 8, 2009). Peppe, Vincent H. 1988. “Fair Use of Unpublished Materials in the Second Circuit: The Letters of the Law.” Brooklyn Law Review 54. CROSS REFERENCE Intellectual Property. LITIGATION An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute. When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. Under the various rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE that govern actions in state and federal courts, litigation involves a series of steps that may lead to a court trial and ultimately a resolution of the matter. Before a lawsuit is filed, the person contem- plating the lawsuit (called the PLAINTIFF) typically demands that the person who caused the alleged injury (called the DEFENDANT) perform certain actions that will resolve the conflict. If the demand is refused or ignored, the plaintiff may start the lawsuit by serving copies of a SUMMONS and complaint on the defendant and filing the complaint with a civil trial court. The complaint must state the alleged injuries and attribute them to the defendant, and request money damages or equitable relief. J.D. Salinger Biography B B iographers of living persons often encounter reluctant or hostile subjects. Such was the case for biographer Ian Hamilton, w hose completed manuscript about novelist J. D. Salinger had to be rewritten because Hamilton had violated copyright law by quoting from Salinger’s unpublished letters. Salinger, the author of The Catcher in the Rye (1951) and several other acclaimed works, ha d l ived reclusively since the early 1960s and did not publish any new works between 1965 and 1996. He zealously protected his privacy, creating an aura of mystery and helping to establish his status as a cult figure. Hamilton, a noted literary biographer, tracked down and quoted from unpublished letters that Salinger had written between 1939 and 1961. As Hamilton’s book containing those quotations neared publication, Salinger s ued, noting that as the author of the letters he retained the right of publication. Hamilton then eliminated direct quotations but substituted extensive paraphrases that tracked the original language very closely. The federal courts agreed with Salinger, holding that Hamilton could write about the factual content of the letters but that Salinger retained the letters’ “expressive content.” Accordingtothecourts, Hamilton’s paraphrasing invaded Salinger’s expres- sive content and formed a substantial part of Hamilton’s manuscript (Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 [2d Cir. 1987]). Hamilton was forced to rewritehismanuscript.Intheend,thebook,In Search of J. D. Salinger (1988), was as much about the legal case and the pursuit of Salinger as it was about the novelist’slife. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LITIGATION 371 If the service of the complaint on the defendant does not result in a settlement of the issues, the plaintiff must begin the discovery process. This involves sending to the defendant written questions (called INTERROGATORIES)that seek information involving the dispute AT ISSUE. The plaintiff may DEPOSE the defendant and others concerning the issues, with the deposition recorded by a COURT REPORTER. The plaintiff may also request copies of documents for review. Once litigation commences the defendant is also permitted to use discovery to learn more about the p laintiff’s case. The discovery process may be conducted in a matter of weeks, or it may take years, depending on the complexity of the case and the level of cooperation between the parties. After discovery is completed, most courts require the parties to attend a settlement confer- ence to determine if the case may be resolved before trial. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the litigation continues to trial. Near or on the day of trial, one or both parties often make settlement offers, in the hope of avoiding court proceedings (which are often costly and protracted). Litigation ends if a settlement is reached. If the parties are still unable to resolve their differences, a trial is held. At trial both sides are permitted to introduce relevant evidence that will help to prove to the jury or the court the truth of their positions. If the plaintiff makes a convincing case, the defendant may seek to settle the case immediately. On the other hand, if the plaintiff presents a weak case, the defendant may ask the court to dismiss the case. If the trial proceeds to a conclusion, either the jury or the judge (if a jury trial was waived) must decide which party prevails. If the defendant loses the lawsuit, the defendant may ask the court to throw out the jury VERDICT if the evidence did not WARRANT the decision, or the defendant may ask that the damages awarded to the plaintiff be reduced. The court has discretion to grant or refuse these kinds of requests. Once a FINAL DECISION has been made at the trial court, the losing party may APPEAL the decision within a specified period of time. The federal courts and the states have interme- diate courts of appeal that hear most civil appeals. The appellate court reviews the argu- ments of the parties on appeal and determines whether the trial court conducted the proceedings correctly. Once the APPELLATE court issues a decision, usually in opinion form, the losing party may appeal to the state supreme court if the litigation occurred in a state court, or to the U.S. Supreme Court if the litigation occurred in a federal court. After the supreme court rules on the case, the decision is final. Once a decision is final, litigation ends. The PREVAILING PARTY is then given the authority to collect damages or receive other remedies from the losing party. After the losing party provides the relief, that party is entitled to receive from the prevailing party a satisfaction of judgment, w hich is filed with the trial court. This document attests to the satisfaction of all court-imposed relief and signifies the end of the case. v LITTLE-COLLINS, ELLA LEE Ella Lee Little-Collins (Muslim name Alziz A. Hamid) was the half sister of Malcolm X, who credited her with playing a major role in his life. She supported the black revolutionary leader both emotionally and financially throughout his short but highly influential life. Malcolm lived with Little-Collins, who served essentially as a surrogate mother for him, off and on from 1940 until 1946, a period that left an indelible imprint on him. Little-Collins also sponsored Malcolm in his pilgrimage to Mecca in the early 1960s— another i mportant, formative period of his life. Though Malcolm credited Little-Collins for being only a positive influence in his life, at least one of his biographers suggests that she was a negative influence as well, asserting that she taught Malcolm his lifestyle of petty thievery. And Malcolm’s widow, Betty Shabazz, has stated that she had no respect for Little-Collins because of her poor influence on Malcolm. Little-Collins did not dispute that she had many run-ins with the law, resulting in ten convic- tions for offenses including petty LARCENY and ASSAULT AND BATTERY. But Little-Collins’s family asserts the run-ins occurred when she was defending others who were being harassed or taken advantage of by people in positions of authority. Little-Collins emerges as a major figure in Malcolm’s life, one of few people who knew him and remained by his side throughout all of his many philosophical incarnations. Little-Collins was born December 4, 1912, in Butler, Georgia, the eldest of three children of the Reverend Earl Lee Little and his first wife, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 372 LITTLE-COLLINS, ELLA LEE Daisy Mason. Her parents had two more children, Mary and Earl, Jr., and divorced in 1917 or 1918. Little-Collins’s mother moved to Boston around 1920, taking Earl Jr. with her. Ella and Mary were left in Butler, Georgia, with Earl Sr.’s parents, John and Ella Little, who raised them to adulthood. Little-Collins left Georgia in 1929 with very little to her name, and went to New York to earn a living. She worked at first as a church secretary at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, the parish at which the Reverend ADAM CLAYTON POWELL , Sr. was minister. This position led to a long-standing professional relationship with the minister’s son, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a CIVIL RIGHTS activist and Harlem’s first African American congressional representative. After a short period in New York, Little-Collins moved to Boston to work at a grocery that her mother was running at the time. She was a hard worker, and she soon began sending money to the relatives remaining in Georgia so that they could also come north. Her father was very proud of her for bringing many family members from Georgia to Boston. Collins’s devotion to her family extended beyond bringing them out of southern poverty: she was known to SUPPORT others in achieving their educational or career goals as well. Malcolm later wrote, “[I]f Ella had ever thought that she could help any member of the Little family put up any kind of pro- fessional shingle—as a teacher, a foot-doctor, anything … you would have had to tie her down to keep her from taking in washing.” In 1933 Little-Collins married Dr. Thomas Lloyd Oxley, a Jamaican-born follower of MARCUS GARVEY . (Garvey urged black Americans to return to their African roots; many members of the Little family were proponents of his philosophy.) Oxley and Little-Collins divorced in 1934. By early 1939, when Little-Collins visited her father’s family in Michigan and met Malcolm for the first time, she had been married to her second husband, Frank Johnson, for nearly four years. During this visit, the seeds were planted that led to Malcolm’s living with her in Roxbury, Massachusetts, later that summer. Malcolm described his first meeting with his half sister, which occurred when he was a young adolescent and she was 26: “[S]he was the first really proud black woman I had ever seen in my life. She was plainly proud of her very dark skin. This was unheard of among Negroes…. I had never been so impressed with anybody.” Little-Collins’ second husband w as in the military when Malcolm arrived in the summer of 1939, after he had finished seventh grade. In his autobiography, Malcolm described Little- Collins as a community leader in Roxbury, an enclave of blacks outside of Boston, which was to Boston as Harlem was to New York. Little- Collins’s standing and the Boston atmosphere impressed the young man, and after he returned home, during the next school year, when he became disenchanted with his opportunities in Michigan, he wrote to Little-Collins that he wanted to live with her permanently in Boston. Little-Collins arranged to transfer official custo- dy of Malcolm to Massachusetts, and he moved there upon finishing eighth grade. Little-Collins had separated from Frank shortly before Malcolm came to live in Roxbury in 1940. They divorced in June 1942. Malcolm later wrote, “[A]ny average man would find it almost impossible to live for very long with a woman whose every instinct was to RUN every- thing and everybody she had anything to do with—including me.” Little-Collins did not approve of the lifestyle that Malcolm began to lead in Roxbury and ▼▼ ▼▼ Ella Lee Little-Collins 1912–1996 19001900 19501950 19751975 20002000 19251925 ❖ 1912 Born, Butler, Ga. 1914–18 World War I ◆ 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1929 Moved to New York; worked as church secretary for Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Sr. 1948–52 While serving time in prison, Malcolm Little (half-brother) converted to Islam and changed name to Malcolm X 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆◆ ◆ 1969 Little-Collins, Powell, and OAAU helped set up nation's first black studies department at City College of New York 1965 Malcolm X assassinated; Little-Collins assumed leadership of OAAU 1964 Malcolm X left Nation of Islam, made Hajj to Mecca, founded Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) 1958–68 Ran the Sarah A. Little School of Preparatory Arts in Boston ❖ 1996 Died, Boston, Mass. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LITTLE-COLLINS, ELLA LEE 373 later continued in Harlem. She was very strict, locking him out of the house if he failed to return home in time, forcing him to spend the night with other relatives who lived downstairs in the same house. She had married Kenneth Collins in June 1942. They had a child, Rodnell, in 1945. Even though Little-Collins had a family of her own, and Malcolm was in and out of trouble, she never really abandoned him. From time to time, when Malcolm returned to her household, she welcomed him with open arms. After Malcolm was convicted of burglary and firearms charges and sent to prison in 1946, Little-Collins sent him money. In 1948, through her efforts, Malcolm was transferred from Concord Prison to the Norfolk, Massachusetts, Prison Colony, an experimental rehabilitative institution patterned after a college campus. This transfer proved to be monumental for Malcolm. The Norfolk Colony had an outstanding library, whose books Malcolm read prodigiously, and inmates were allowed to participate in cultural events such as debates, group discussions, and educational lectures. Malcolm read about his- tory and RELIGION, increased his vocabulary, and developed his debating skills, all of which later served him as a leader in the NATION OF ISLAM. Little-Collins continued to have contact with Malcolm after his release from prison, as his stature as a black leader increased. She also continued working within the black community. By 1957 her third MARRIAGE had ended; by Malcolm’s description, Little-Collins was “more driving and dynamic” than the sum of her three husbands. Because of her half brother’s influence, Little-Collins joined the Nation of Islam, becoming a member of Boston’s Mosque Eleven. However, she was thrown out, accord- ing to Malcolm, because of her tendency to take charge of any situation. She was taken back, but later left on her own, breaking with Elijah Muhammad’s Black Muslims in 1959. During this time, Little-Collins also started the Sarah A. Little School of Preparatory Arts, in Boston, where children were taught Arabic, as well as Swahili, French, and Spanish. Little- Collins herself hired the teachers, who donated their time; although she did not speak any language but English, she echoed her half brother’s belief in the importance of being able to communicate with others in their native tongues. The school ’s curriculum also included arts and etiquette instruction. It was in existence from 1958 to 1968. Malcolm continued to rely on Little-Collins for her support of both himself and his ministry. After he was silenced as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam, he decided that he wanted to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, but he did not have enough of his own money to pay for the trip. He flew to Boston to ask Little-Collins for help. In his autobiography, he described their meeting as follows: “I was turning again to my sister Ella. Though at times I’d made Ella angry at me … Ella had never once really wavered from my corner.” When Malcolm announced that he wanted to make the pilgrimage, Little- Collins said only, “How much do you need?” Through the income from her REAL ESTATE holdings, Little-Collins had been saving for her own trip to Mecca, but insisted that Malcolm take the money because it was more important that he go. Malcolm later credited the trip, taken in April and May 1964, with broadening his horizons and changing his entire outlook on the U.S. blacks’ struggle for civil rights. After Malcolm was assassinated in February 1965, Little-Collins accompanied his widow to the medical examiner ’s office in New York to identify the body. Little-Collins later returned to Boston, where she announced at a press conference that she would choose the leaders of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), the group Malcolm had set up after his break with Elijah Muhammad, to succeed Malcolm. Little-Collins herself served as interim president and president of the OAAU for a time as well as supporting the group financ ially. For ten years the OAAU sponsored workshops during the week of May 19, the anniversary of Malcolm’s birth. Little-Collins, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., and the OAAU were in strumental in setting up what is said to be the nation’s first degree-granting college black studies depart- ment, at the City College of New York, in 1969. However, perhaps owing to her domineering personality and the rift between her and Shabazz, the group’s influence diminished after Mal- colm’s death. Little-Collins continued supporting black causes by donating her time and money. She brought young people into her home, raised them, passed along the teachings of Malcolm, and sent several on pilgrimages to Mecca. She characterized herself as a human-rights activist rather than a civil-rights activist, because she felt that universal HUMAN RIGHTS were of primary GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 374 LITTLE-COLLINS, ELLA LEE importance. Little-Collins eventually moved to a Boston-area nursing home, where she died August 3, 1996 at the age of 84. She left one son, Rodnell Collins, who is the OAAU’s current president. CROSS REFERENCE Civil Rights Movement. v LITTLETON, SIR THOMAS Sir THOMAS LITTLETON was an English judge and writer who is known for his TREATISE on land law, entitled On Tenures (1481). Littleton’swork served as an inspiration and model for later English jurists, including SIR EDWARD COKE. Littleton was born in 1422 in Frankley Manor House, Worcestershire. He became a counsel at law in 1445 and served as a recorder of Coventry in 1450. In 1455 he became a judge of assize on the Northern Circuit, and he was appointed a justice of COMMON PLEAS in 1466. In 1475 King Edward IV made him a knight of the Bath. He died in 1481 and was buried in Worcestershire Cathedral. Littleton’s On Tenures is regarded as a model of legal scholarship, a clear and concise classification of English land law. Its significance rests in Littleton’s attempt to impose a rational and orderly arrangement on legal rights in land. At the time the work was written, English land law had become extremely complicated. The treatise consists of three books. The first deals with various estates in land, the second with the incidents of tenure (the holding of lands in SUBORDINATION to some superior), and the third with co-ownership and other specialized doctrines relating to property. Unlike previous authors, Littleton did not rely on ROMAN LAW but dealt exclusively with English land law. Littleton followed a consistent method of analysis. He first defined a particular class of rights and then analyzed the many variations and implications of that class. Having identified certain key principles underlying a particular area of land law, Littleton then demonstrated how novel problems might be so lved by refer- ence to them. Modern commentators have lauded Littleton for the scientific organization of his material. On Tenures was the first major legal treatise written in French instead of Latin and the first work on English law to be printed in London. For more than three centuries, it formed the standard introduction to students of English real PROPERTY LAW. Coke, who considered it a model of clear and lucid exposition of English law, made it the subject of his First Institute, Coke upon Littleton (1628). It stands as an early classic of English law. LITTORAL RIGHTS Rights relating to the ownership of property that abuts an ocean, sea, or lake. Littoral proprietors are occupants of land that borders the above-named bodies of water, WHEREAS riparian proprietors are those who occupy land bordering streams or rivers. Littoral rights are generally concerned with the use and enjoyment of the shore. CROSS REFERENCE Riparian Rights. ▼▼ ▼▼ Sir Thomas Littleton 1422–1481 14001400 14501450 14751475 15001500 14251425 ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ ◆ ❖❖ 1445 Became counsel at law 1422 Born, Frankley Manor House, Worcestershire, England 1455 Appointed judge of assize on the Northern Circuit 1450 Appointed recorder of Coventry 1466 Appointed justice of common pleas 1461 Henry VI deposed; King Edward IV became king of England 1481 On Tenures published; died, Worcestershire, England 1475 King Edward IV made Littleton a knight of the Bath 1492 Columbus claims New World for Spain 1483 Edward IV died; Richard III became king after murdering Edward V GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LITTORAL RIGHTS 375 LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT OF 1933 An executive agreement made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as part of the arrange- ments by which the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Litvinov Assignment purported to transfer to the United States certain American assets located in Russia that had been previously nationalized by the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the United States went to court to establish its title to the assets. In the famous case of United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 62 S. Ct. 552, 86 L. Ed. 796 (1942), the Supreme Court upheld this title on the basis of the execut ive agreement. The Court saw the agreement as an integral part of the new recognition policy of the government and as a proper method of mitigating losses resulting from the nationalization of U.S. owned property in the Soviet Union. The Court held that the powers of theexecutive branch in the conduct of foreign policy were not herein restricted by the need for Senat e consent. v LIUZZO, VIOLA FAUVER GREGG CIVIL RIGHTS activist and martyr Viola Fauver Gregg Liuzzo was murdered after the 1965 voting rights march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama. A 39-year-old wife, mother, and student, Liuzzo had spontaneously driven from her home in Detroit to help with the historic march. While transporting other participants back to Selma afterward, she was killed by members of the KU KLUX KLAN (KKK). The tragedy both shocked and inspired U.S. citizens. President LYNDON B. JOHNSON decried her slaying on national television, and her death gave impetus for passing the landmark VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq.). Two Alabama juries failed to convict her assassins, who were ultimately found guilty of CONSPIRACY. Nearly two decades later, her family brought an unsuccessful $2 million lawsuit against the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGA- TION (FBI), following congressional revelations that the bureau may have known about but done nothing to stop Klan plans to kill the marchers. Liuzzo’s memory is honored by memorials in Alabama and commemorations in Detroit. Liuzzo was born in the coal-mining town of California, Pennsylvania, on April 11, 1925. She dropped out of school in the tenth grade and worked as a waitress. In 1950 she married Anthony James Liuzzo, a business agent of the Viola Liuzzo. AP IMAGES Viola Fauver Gregg Liuzzo 1925–1965 ▼▼ ▼▼ 19251925 20002000 19751975 19501950 ❖ ◆ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1983 Judge found government and Rowe not liable for Liuzzo's death 1979 Liuzzo family brought lawsuit against FBI, holding Rowe and the government responsible for Liuzzo's death 1975 Senate hearings investigating FBI abuses shed new light on FBI informant Gary Rowe's involvement in Liuzzo's murder 1965 Murdered by Klansmen near Lowndesboro, Ala.; defendants acquitted of murder but convicted of federal civil rights violations 1962 Graduated from Carnegie Institute of Detroit 1939–45 World War II 1925 Born, California, Pa. 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 376 LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT OF 1933 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, wi th whom she had three children. Liuzzo returned to school, and in 1962 she graduated with top honors from the Carnegie Institute of Detroit. She found employment as a medical laboratory assistant. Though a high school dropout, she loved reading, and intro- duced her children to the works of the philoso- pher HENRY DAVID THOREAU . She explained to them his theory of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, a concept that would find widespread support during the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. Despite her lack of formal education, Liuzzo won acceptance to Wayne State University. By 1965, she was studying Shakespeare and philos- ophy. Like other students across the United States, she became increasingly concerned about violence against civil rights workers. The civil rights movement was at a crossroads: It had achieved important gains against desegregation, but now it faced resistance and violence as it sought to win voting rights for African Amer- icans living in the South. In early March 1965 a pivotal event in civil rights history pushed the movement forward and changed Liuzzo’s life. The MURDER of Jimmie Lee Jackson at the hands of Alabama troopers had motivated civil rights leaders to stage a protest march from Selma, Alabama, to the capitol in Montgomery, fifty miles away. The march would be led by MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., president of the SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE (SCLC); Ralph J. Bunche, an African American Nobel laureate and diplomat to the UNITED NATIONS; and other dignitaries. Once at the capitol, they planned to confront Governor GEORGE WALLACE, an unbending foe of integra- tion. But, as in previous civil rights protests, Wallace’s state troopers struck first. On March 7, hundreds of African Americans set out from Selma, only to be stopped minutes later by club- wielding police officers and troopers. As law enforcement officers beat men, women, and children, millions of horrified U.S. citizens watched on television. Liuzzo and her family were among the viewers. Within days, protests erupted nationwide. In Washington, D.C., some 600 people picketed outside the White House. In Detroit, Liuzzo joined 250 students in a march on local FBI offices. Wherever protests occurred, people demanded federal protection for civil rights workers and the passage of new voting rights legislation. King announced a new march from Selma to Montgomery. Before it could begin on March 9, federal judge FRANK M. JOHNSON, fearing new violence, postponed it. Two days later, another civil rights worker—the Reverend James J. Reeb, a Unitarian minister from Boston—died at the hands of violent whites in Selma. On March 15, President Lyndon B. John- son appeared on television to address both houses of Congress. He called for passage of the voting rights bill and also gave his full support to the marchers in Selma. That night, Liuzzo attended a meeting at which several Wayne State students said they would join the march. She too decided to go. She packed a few clothes in a shopping bag, and by the next afternoon was driving south. Liuzzo was one of thousands arriving at the church that served as the launching point for the march, Brown Chapel. Appointed to the reception desk to help with last-minute chores, she greeted new arrivals. As was her way, she wanted to do more, and soon she had volun- teered the use of her car for transporting others. On March 21, the journey to Montgomery began as marchers passed a vast contingent of federal security. Governor Wallace had ruled out protecting the marchers as being too expensive, but President Johnson had made available military police, FBI agents, U.S. marshals, and nineteen hundred members of the Alabama NATIONAL GUARD who were placed under federal control. There was to be no repeat of the violence committed two weeks earlier by Alabama troopers. The five-day march ended in a gathering of 25,000 thousand people at the capitol in Montgomery, where King once again preached his doctrine of nonviolence. Yet he warned of further struggles ahead. Now that the march was over, Liuzzo pre- pared to make good on her promise of driving people back to Selma. Staff members of the SCLC advised her that further help was unnec- essary, given the buses already waiting. Liuzzo nevertheless drove three women and a man to their destination and by nightfall, was returning to Selma again, this time with 19-year-old Leroy Moton, an African American barber and civil rights worker. In the swamplands of Lowndes County, a car chased them down and its occupants shot and killed Liuzzo. IT’S EVERYBODY’S FIGHT .THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO JUST STAND AROUND TALKING . —VIOLA LIUZZO GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LIUZZO, VIOLA FAUVER GREGG 377 . Born, California, Pa. 1950–53 Korean War 1 961 –73 Vietnam War GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 3 76 LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT OF 1933 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, wi th whom she had three. control the content of a book is antithetical to the promotion of scholarship and to the public purposes of copyright. CROSS REFERENCE Privacy. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION LITERARY. governed by copyright laws, which granted exclusive rights to the author for a fixed term of years. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 370 LITERARY PROPERTY The effect of publication was