Dorne, Clifford K. 2007. Restorative Justice in the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice Hall. Walgrave, Lode, ed. 2002. Restorative Justice and the Law. Uffculme, Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Weitekamp, Elmar, and Hans-Jurgen Kerner, eds. 2003. Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations. Uffculme, Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. CROSS REFERENCES Sentencing; Victims of Crime. RESTRAINING ORDER A restraining order is a command of the court issued upon the filing of an application for an INJUNCTION, prohibiting the defendant from per- forming a threatened act until a hearing on the application can be held. A restraining order is an official command issued by a court requiring an individual to refrain from a certain activity. Restraining orders are sought by plaintiffs in a wide variety of instances for the same reason: The PLAINTIFF wishes to prevent the DEFENDANT from doing something that the defendant has threatened. Restraining orders are used in a variety of contexts, including employment disputes, COPY- RIGHT INFRINGEMENT , and cases of harassment, domestic abuse, and STALKING. All restraining orders begin with an application to the court, which decides the merits of the request by using a traditional test. Limited in their duration and effect, restraining orders are distinguished from the more lasting form of court intervention called an INJUNCTION. Generally a restraining order is sought as a form of immediate relief while a plaintiff pursues a permanent injunction. A restraining order is a type of EQUITABLE REMEDY. A court submits a request for a restraining order to one of several tests. These tests vary slightly across different jurisdictions, but gener- ally they involve the analysis of four separate factors: (1) whether the moving party will suffer IRREPARABLE INJURY if the relief is not granted; (2) whether the moving party is likely to succeed on the merits of the case; (3) whether the opposing party will be harmed more than the moving party is helped; and (4) whether granting the relief is in the PUBLIC INTEREST. Usually, restraining orders are not perma- nent. They exist because of the need for immediate relief: The plaintiff requires fast action from the court to prevent injury. Seeking a permanent injunction can take months or years because it involves a full hearing, but the process of obtaining a restraining order can take a matter of days or weeks. For even faster relief, moving parties can seek a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO). These are often issued EX PARTE, meaning that only the moving party is present in court. The TRO usually lasts only until an injunctive hearing involving both parties can be held. Harassment of an individual can result in a permanent restraining order. This command of the court is also called a PROTECTIVE ORDER. All states permit individuals to seek a restraining order when they are subjected to harassment by another individual or organization , typically involving behavior such as repeated, intrusive, and unwanted acts. Application for such an order usually is made to the district court. If granted, it prohibits the party named from initiating any contact with the protected party. Most states have passed anti-stalking laws designed to protect women from criminal harassment by men. These laws generally require that a plaintiff first secure a restraining order before criminal charges can be filed. FURTHER READINGS American Law Institute–American Bar Association (ALI-ABA). 1996. Obtaining a Preliminary Injunc- tion and Temporary Restraining Order, by James J. Brosnahan. Course of study, August 14, 1996. SB24 ALI-ABA 247. Weaver, Russell L., and Michael B. Kelly. 2005. Remedies. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West. CROSS REFERENCES Equity; Equitable Remedy; Injunction. RESTRAINT OF TRADE Contracts or combinations that tend, or are designed, to eliminate or stifle competition, crea te a MONOPOLY, artificially maintain prices, or otherwise hamper or obstruct the course of trade as it would be carried on if it were left to the control of natural economic forces. As used in the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), unreasonable restraints of trade are illegal per se and interfere with free competition in business and commercial trans- actions. Such restraint tends to restrict produc- tion, affect prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services. A restraint of trade that is ordinarily reasonable can be rendered unreasonable if it is accompanied by a GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 368 RESTRAINING ORDER SPECIFIC INTENT to achieve the equivalent of a forbidden restraint. CROSS REFERENCES Antitrust Law; Combination in Restraint of Trade. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT A provision in a deed limiting the use of the property and prohibiting certain uses. A clause in contracts of partnership and employment prohi- biting a contracting party from engaging in similar employment for a specified period of time within a certain geographical area. A COVENANT is a type of contractual arrangement. A restrictive covenant is a clause in a deed or lease to real property that limits what the owner of the land or lease can do with the property. Restrictive covenants allow sur- rounding property owners, who have similar covenants in their deeds, to enforce the terms of the covenants in a court of law. They are intended to enhance property values by con- trolling development. Land developers typically use restrictive covenants when they subdivide property for residential developments. A land developer, after platting the subdivision into lots, blocks, and streets, will impose certain limitations on the use of the lots in the development. These may include a provision restricting construction to single-family dwellings with no detached outbuildings, as well as specifying that the dwellings are to be built at least a specified distance from the street and from the side and back lot lines, commonly called a “set back” requirement. Another common restrictive cove- nant specifies a minimum square footage for dwellings. There may be a variety of other restrictive covenants that seek to control the way the development looks and is maintained. These covenants are filed with the approved plat. A person who purchases a lot in a develop- ment with restrictive covenants must honor the limitations. When the purchaser resells the lot to a buyer, the new owner will take the property subject to the restrictive covenants, because the covenants are said to “run with the land.” If a person violates or attempts to violate one or more of the covenants, a person who is benefited by the covenants, usually an adjacent property owner, may sue to enforce the restrictions. Courts generally strictly construe restrictive covenants to allow a landowner to use her land for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited by the restrictive cove- nants or by the local government. Therefore, if a developer wants to restrict a subdivision to single-family residences, the developer must state “single family residential” rather than “residential” in the covenant. Restrictive covenants at one time were used to prevent minorities from moving into resi- dential neighborhoods. A group of homeowners would agree not to sell or rent their homes to African Americ ans, Jews, and other minorities by including this restriction in their real estate deeds. Until 1948 it was thought that this form of private discrimination was legal because the state was not involved. However, in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948), the U.S. Supreme Court held such covenants to be unenforceable in state courts because any such enforcement would amount to STATE ACTION in contravention of the FOUR- TEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution. For a state court to enforce such an agreement would foster a perception that the state approved of racially restrictive covenants. Al- though this kind of restric tive covenant is no longer judicially enforceable, racial restrictions are still contained in some deeds. Apart from real estate law, restrictive covenants may be used in partnership agree- ments or employment contracts to protect a business if a partner or employee leaves. For example, a life insurance company may require a prospective employee to sign an employment contract in which the employee agrees not to sell life insurance in that geographical area for a specified period of time after leaving the company. If the time and geographical restric- tions are reasonable, a court may enforce the restrictions. Some restrictive covenants may be so unfair, however, that a court will declare them contrary to public policy and make them legally unenforceable. FURTHER READINGS Breemer, J. David. 2000. “Strict Construction of a Common Restrictive Covenant.” The Univ. of Hawaii Law Review 22 (summer). Himmel, Brian T. 2003. “Remedies Available in Pennsylvania for Restrictive Covenant and Trade Secret Violations.” Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 74 (April). Sabey, Donald L., and Ann R. Everton. 1999. The Restrictive Covenant in the Control of Land Use. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RESTRICTIVE COVENANT 369 CROSS REFERENCES Employment Law; Land-Use Control; Running with the Land; Zoning. RESTRICTIVE INDORSEMENT The act of a payee or other holder of an instrument, such as a check, that consists of signing his or her name upon the back of the instrument in order to transfer it to another and wording the signature in such a manner as to bar the further negotiability of the instrument. For example, the phrases Pay the contents to A only, or to A for my use, are restrictive indorsements and terminate the transferability of the document. An indorsement is restrictive if it (1) is conditional; (2) purports to proscribe further transfer of the instrument; (3) includes the terms for collection, for deposit, pay any bank, or similar terms denoting a purpose of deposit or collection; or (4) states that it is for the benefit or use of the indorser—the one who signs the back of the instrument in order to transf er it— or of another person. RESULTING TRUST An arrangement whereby one person holds property for the benefit of another, which is implied by a court in certain cases where a person transfers property to another and gives him or her legal title to it but does not intend him or her to have an equitable or beneficial interest in the property. Because this BENEFICIAL INTEREST is not given to anyone else, it is said to “result” to the person who transferred the property. A party forms an express trust when it intends to transfer property to be held in trust for the benefit of another person. A resulting trust arises when an express trust fails. A settler—the party who creates the trust—trans- fers his property to a trustee (one appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust) to hold in trust for a BENEFICIARY (one who profits from the act of another). If, without the settlor’sknowl- edge, the beneficiary died before the trust was created, the express trust would fail for want of a beneficiary. The trustee holds the property in a resulting trust for the settlor. When an express trust does not use or exhaust all the trust property, a resulting trust arises. For example, the settlor transfers $200,000 in trust to pay the beneficiary during her lifetime $2,000 a month from principal, trust property, as opposed to income generated by investment of the principal. No other disposition is specified. The beneficiary dies after having received $20,000. The trustee holds the unexpended funds in a resulting trust for the settlor. A purchase money resulting trust arises when one person purchases and pays for property, and the name of another person is on the title. For example, a person purchases a farm for $100,000 and directs the seller to make the deed out to a third person. Nothing further appears concerning the purchaser’sintention, and no relationship exists between the purchaser and the third person. In this situation, a resulting trust is created. The purchaser’sintentionis inferred from the absence of expressed intention that she intends the third person to have an interest in the farm. This occurs because a person usually does not intend to dispose of property without receiving something in return for it, unless she makes an express statement to the contrary, such as announcing an intention to make a gift or loan. If the purchaser is the spouse or parent of the third person, which is not the case here, it is presumed that a gift is intended. In this case, the third person holds a purchase money resulting trust for the purchaser. A purchase money resulting trust does not arise, however, if the person who pays the purchase price manifests an intention that no resulting trust should arise. Purchase money resulting trusts have been abolished or restricted in a number of states. The resulting trust attempts to dispose of the property in the manner the person who transferred it would have wanted if he had anticipated the situation. The court will order that the person with LEGAL TITLE to the trust property hold it in a resulting trust for the person who transferred it. When a charitable trust—a trust designed for the benefit of a class or the public generally — fails, a resulting trust will be invoked only if the doctrine of CY PRES is deemed not to apply. This doctrine implements the intention of a person as nearly as possible when giving literal effect to the intent would be illegal or impossible. FURTHER READINGS Cain, Patricia A., and Gary Spitko. 2006. Wills, Trusts, and Estates. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 370 RESTRICTIVE INDORSEMENT Horn, Jerold I. 2007. Flexible Trusts and Estates for Unce rtain Times. 3d ed. Philadelphia: American Law Institute—American Bar Association. CROSS REFERENCES Beneficial Interest; Cy Pres; Settlor; Tru st; Trustee. RETAINER A contract between attorney and client specifying the nature of the services to be rendered and the cost of the services. Retainer also denotes the fee that the client pays when employing an attorney to act on her behalf. When a client retains an attorney to act for her, the client thereby prevents the attorney from acting for an adversary. A right to retainer refers to the authority by which the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person reserves out of the assets an amount sufficient to pay any debt due to him from the deceased in priority to the other creditors whose debts are of equal degree. CROSS REFERENCE Executors and Administrators. RETALIATORY EVICTION The act of a landlord in ejecting or attempting to eject a tenant from the rented premises, or in refusing to renew a lease, because of the tenant’s complaints or par ticipation in a tenant’s union or in similar activities with which the landlord is not in accord. In some states, such retaliation will bar the landlord from enforcing normal eviction reme- dies against the tenant. CROSS REFERENCE Landlord and Tenant. RETORSION A phrase used in INTERNATIONAL LAW to describe retaliatory action taken by one foreign government against another for the stringent or harsh regulation or treatment of its citizens who are within the geographical boundaries of the foreign country. The typical methods of retorsion are the use of comparably severe measures against citizens of the foreign nation found within the borders of the retaliating nation. RETRACTION In the law of DEFAMATION , a formal recanting of the libelous or slanderous material. Retraction is not a defense to defamation, but under certain circumstances, it is admissible in MITIGATION OF DAMAGES. CROSS REFERENCE Libel and Slander. RETRO [Latin, Back; backward; behind.] A prefix used to designate a prior condition or time. In U.S. law, the prefix is most conseque n- tially used in the adjec tive “retroactive.” A retroactive law changes the legal con- sequences of an action after it has occurred, thus creating a legal posture that was not in place at the time, such as the criminalization of particular acts that were perfectly legal when committed, or perhaps the instatement or extension of punishment that was not provided for when acts were committed. As a result of the abrupt changes that they can impose, retroactive laws are generally disfavored in U.S. law. RETROACTIVE Having reference to things that happened in the past, prior to the occurrence of the act in question. A retroactive or retrospective law is one that takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, creates new obligations, imposes new duties, or attaches a new and different legal effect to transactions or con- siderations already past. Common-law princi- ples do not favor the retroactive effect of laws in the majority of cases, and canons of legislative construction presume that legislation is not intended as retroactiv e unless its language expressly mak es it retroactive. Retroactive criminal laws that increase punishment for acts committed prior to their enactments are deemed EX POST FACTO LAWS and are unenforceable because they violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, and Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Cons titution and comparable provi- sions of state constitutions. Retroactive laws may offend principles of Due Process. A Due Process Clause protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute’s prospective application under the Clause may GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RETROACTIVE 371 not suffice to warrant its retroactive application. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Critics of state sex offender registration laws have often charge d that there is a retroactive effect in requiring sex offenders, who had already served their punishments, to register with central authorities. Their usual argument is that the sex offender registration laws came into being after the offenses were committed, and prison terms served, yet add a new dimension of public redress against the offenders in subject- ing them to laws not in effect at the time certain SEX OFFENSES were committed. A requirement that all convicted sex offenders within a jurisdiction suddenly fall with a new law that is based on past acts, according to this argument, is tantamount to a retroactive punishment for crimes already punished, as it applies not only to future acts but also to those persons who have committed offenses prior to passage of the laws. However, in the 2003 case of Smith V. Doe, 538, U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed. 2d 164, which concerned the constitutionality of Alaska’s sex offender registration law, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the regulatory scheme was not unconstitutionally retroactive, because the regis- tration requirements were meant to protect the public and did not amount to punishment. The dissenting justices argued that the registration requirements were punitive in that they resulted in the deprivation of offenders’ liberty. RETURN The redelivery of a writ, notice, or other form of legal process to the court after its proper service on the defendant or after it cannot be served, also called “return of service” the official report made by a court, body of magistrates, or other official board charged with counting votes cast in an election, also called an “ election return.” Return of Service The Federal Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE require a PLAINTIFF to begin an action in federal co urt by preparing a complaint and givi ng it to the court. Then the clerk of the court issues a summons and delivers the summons and complaint to a U.S. marshal or a deputy, unless the court designates someone else. That person must take the papers, called “legal process,” and serve them on the named DEFENDANT. The PROCESS SERVER must promptly report back to the court the circumstances of the service or the failure to serve the papers. This report with the process server’s signa- ture on it is called the “return of service.” It recites facts to demonstrate that the defendant has actually been given notice that he or she is required to appear in court. The failure to make a proper return does not make the service invalid or defeat its effectiveness for starting the lawsuit, but it can be grounds for disciplining the process server. The return is important to the court because it is proof that service was properly made on the correct person and that the action has been legally commenced. Election Return An election return is the report made to the board of canvassers or the election board by those charged with tallying votes. The report sets forth the number of votes cast for a particular candidate or proposition. Election returns are paper certificates from precincts and counties showing total individual votes cast for each candidate, and implements used in carry- ing out an election. These implements include ballots, ballot boxes, voting mac hines, poll books, statements of canvass, signature rosters, registered voter lists, absentee ballots, absentee ballot registers, absentee voter lists, and meth- ods used for compilation of vote totals. CROSS REFERENCE Service of Process. RETURN DAY The day on which votes are counted and the election results announced. The day named in a writ or other form of legal process as the date when the response to that paper must be made. The day on which an officer, such as a U.S. marshal, must file proof with the court that he or she has served legal process on a defendant or that he or she cannot serve the papers. The statement is made under oath and is called the return or return of process. For example, a defendant may make a motion in separate papers challenging some action taken by the plaintiff during pretrial discovery. In the motion papers, the defendant must specify the day when the plaintiff must deliver papers if he objects to the relief sought by the defendant. That date is called the return day, or return date. REVENUE Return or profit such as the annual or periodic rents, profits, interest, or income from any type GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 372 RETURN of real or PERSONAL PROPERTY, received by an individual, a corporation, or a government. Public revenues are the sources of income that a government collects and receives into its treasury and appropriates for the payment of its expenses. REVERSE To overthrow, invalidate, repeal, or revoke. For example , an appeals court reverses the judgment, decree, or sentence of a lower court either by substituting its own decision or by returning the case to the lower court with instructions for a new trial. CROSS REFERENCES Appeal; Court of Appeal. REVERSION Any future interest kept by a person who transfers property to another. A reversion occurs when a property owner makes an effective transfer of property to another but retains some future right to the property. For example, if Sara transfers a piece of property to Shane for life, Shane has the use of the property for the rest of his lif e. Upon his death, the property reverts, or goes back, to Sara, or if Sara has died, it goes to her heirs. Shane’s interest in the property, in this example, is a life estate. Sara’s ownership interest during Shane’s life, and her right or the right of her heirs to take back the property upon Shane’s death, are called reversionary interests. A reversion differs from a remainder because a reversion arises through the operation of law rather than by act of the parties. A remainder is a future interest that is created in some person other than the grantor or transferor, whereas a reversion creates a future interest in the grantor or his or her heirs. If Sara’s transfer had been “to Shane for life, then to Lily,” Lily’s interest would be a remainder. CROSS REFERENCE Estate. REVERTER, POSSIBILITY OF A contingent future interest in real property that a grantor of a determinable fee possesses after he or she has conveyed property. The possibility of reverter arises when the grantor of real property has conveyed land subject to the possibility that the estate will return to her or to her heirs if a certain specified limitation occurs. For example, if A, owner of Blackacre in fee simple, makes the conveyance, “To B and B’s heirs as long as the land is used for church purposes,” then A has a possibility of reverter. A is entitled to the return of the land if B and B’s heirs do not use the land for the designated purpose. REVIEW To reexamine judicially or administratively; a judicial reconsideration for purposes of correction, for example, the examination of a case by an appellate court. A bill of review is a proceeding in EQUITY instituted for the purpose of reversing or correcting the prior judgment of the trial court after the judgment has become final. REVISED STATUTES A body of statutes that have been revised, collected, arranged in order, and reenacted as a whole. The legal title of the collection of compiled laws of the United States, as well as some of the individual states. REVIVAL OF AN ACTION A mechanism of legal procedure that operates at the PLEADING stage of litigation to subsequently renew an action that has been abated, terminated, or suspended for reasons other than the merits of the claim. Lawsuits abate primarily because of the death of a party. In the past, under COMMON LAW, a lawsuit terminated automatically whenever a party died. This rule was part of the substance of the law involved and was not merely a matter of procedure. Whether the CAUSE OF ACTION abated depended on whether the lawsuit was considered personal to the parties. Contract and property cases were thought to involve issues separate from the parties themselv es. They were not personal and did not necessarily end on the death of a party. Personal injury cases, includ- ing claims not only for physical assault or negligent injuries inflicted on the body but also other injuries to the person, such as LIBEL, slander, and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, were GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REVIVAL OF AN ACTION 373 considered personal and abated when one of the parties died. In the early twenty-first century, most lawsuits do not abate. Statutes permit the revival of a lawsuit that was pending when a party died. Personal representatives, such as EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRAT ORS, may be substi- tuted for the deceased party, and the lawsuit may continue. These are not the same as survival statutes, which permit the maintenance of a l awsuit on behalf of a person who has died, whether it began before the deceased’sdeathor not. A lawsuit can be revived only if the underlying cause of action, the ground for the suit, continues to have a legal existence after the party’sdeath. Revival statutes vary from state to state. Matrimonial actions do not usually fall within the scope of revival statutes. An action for DIVORCE or separation is considered entirely personal and generally cannot be maintained after the death of a spouse. Different states sometimes make exceptions to settle certain questions of property ownership. The ANNUL- MENT of a marriage after the death of an innocent spouse may be permitted if it is clear that the marriage resulted from FRAUD and the perpetrator of the fraud would inherit property she would otherwise not be allowed to take. CROSS REFERENCE Abatement of an Action. REVIVE To renew. For example, revival is the act of renewing the legal force of a contract or debt, either by acknowledging it or by giving a new promise, when the contract or debt is no longer a sufficient foundation for a lawsuit because it is barred by the running of the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. REVOCATION The recall of some power or authority that has been granted. Revocation by the act of a party is intentional and voluntary, such as when a person cancels a POWER OF ATTORNEY that he has given or a will that he has written. The revocation of a will takes place when a testator makes a later will containing terms that are inconsistent with the terms of an earlier will, or when the testator destroys the former will. A revocation by operation of law or constructive revocation occurs without regard to the intention of the par ties. A power of attorney, therefore, is ordinarily revoked auto- matically by operation of law upon the death of the principal. REVOKE To annul or make void by recalling or taking back; to cancel, rescind, repeal, or reverse. REVOLUTION Revolution is a sudden, tumultuous, and radical transformation of an entire system of government, including its legal and political components. In many instances, revolutions encompass society as a whole, bringing fundamental change to a culture’s economic, religious, and institu- tional framework. Fundamental change that is incrementally wrought over time is more properly considered evolutionary rather than revolutionary. A revolution also should be contrasted with a coup d’etat, which generally involves the violent ousting of a particular regime or its leaders, but which otherwise leaves intact the society’s political, legal, and economic infrastructure. In many ways law and revolution occupy polar extremes in a political system. Law serves as one of the principal edifices upon which social order is built. Revolutions, by contrast, seek to dismantle the existing social order. Legal systems are established in part to replace private forms of justice, such as SELF-HELP and VIGILANTISM,which can lead to endless cycles of revenge. Revolu- tions, conversely, depend on persons who are willing to take law into their own hands. At the same time, law can serve as the motivating force behind revolutionary activity. In writing the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THOMAS JEFFERSON explained that it had become necessary for the colonies to dissolve their formal ties with Great Britain because the king of England had abused his autocratic power by denying Americans their INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, Jefferson said, are guaranteed by an unwritten NATURAL LAW. The American Revolu- tion, then, was fought to restore the RULE OF LAW in the United States, which was not fully accomplished until the power of government GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 374 REVIVE was subordinated to the will of the people in the state and federal constitutions. Along these same lines, JOHN LOCKE, in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), postu- lated the right of all citizens to revolt against tyrants who subvert the law and oppress the populace through the wanton use of force and terror. Such tyrannical ABUSE OF POWER, Locke said, may be resisted because every person is born with the rights to SELF-DEFENSE and self- preservation, which supersede the laws of a despotic sovereign. However, neither Jefferson nor Locke prescribed a formula to determine when governmental behavior becomes suffi- ciently despotic to justify revolution. The traditional meaning of the term revolu - tion has been diluted by popular culture. Every day Americans are inundated with talk of revolution. The fitness revolution, the technol- ogy revolution, the computer revolution, and the information revolution are just a few examples of the everyday usage of this term. Such common usage has extended the meaning of revolution to such an extent that it is now virtually synonymous with benign terms such as change, development, and progress. Yet traditional revolutions are rarely benign. The French Revolution of 1789 is historically associated with unfettered bloodletting at the guillotine. The twentieth-century revolutions in Russia, Southeast Asia, and Central America were marked by persecution and mass extermi- nation of political opponents. These revolutions demonstrate the tension separating power from the rule of law. Follow- ing a revolution, members of new regimes are inevitably tempted to take revenge on the leaders of the ousted regime to whom they attribute the commission of horrible acts while in office. Now holding the reins of sovereignty, the new regime has acquired the power to impose an expedient form of justice upon members of the old regime. This form of justice has many faces, including the confiscation of property without a hearing, forcible detention without trial, and the implementation of summary executions. However, the rule of law requires govern- ments to act in strict accordance with clearly defined and well-established legal procedures and principles. The rule of law disfavors ARBITRARY and capricious governmental action. Thus, every revolutionary regime faces a similar dilemma: how to make a deposed regime pay for its tyrannical behavior without committing acts of tyranny itself. The identity and ideological direc- tion of a revolutionary regime is often determined by the manner in which this dilemma is resolved. FURTHER READINGS Berman, Harold. 1983. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Burrage, Michael. 2006. Revolution and the Making of the Contemporary Legal Profession: England, France, and the United States. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. O’Kane, Rosemary H. T. 2004. Paths to Democracy: Revolution and Totalitarianism. New York: Routledge. Rubenfeld, Jed. 2005. Revolution by Judiciary: The Structure of American Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Wood, Gordon. 1991. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books. CROSS REFERENCES Anarchism; Communism; Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich; Marx, Karl Heinrich. REVOLUTIONARY WAR See WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. REVOLVING CHARGE A type of credit arrangement that permits a buyer or a borrower to purchase merchandise or obtain loans on a continuing basis as long as the outstanding balance of the account does not exceed a certain limit. REVOLVING CHARGE agreements are usually made in connection with the use of a bank or a department store credit card. The term revolving charge is used interchangeably with the term revolving credit. When all outstanding charges are paid before or on the payment due date, which is usually immediately before the date of the second billing, no interest charge is assessed against the account, although this policy might change in the future. For example, a customer charges $200 in merchandise during the first week in January and receives the statement of her outstanding balance on February 2. If the customer pays the $200 balance in full before March 2, the payment due date, no service charge is added to the account. When the customer does not wish to pay the outstanding balance in full, she may make monthly installment payments, if the credit agreement so provides. The amount of each GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REVOLVING CHARGE 375 payment is determined according to a schedule based on a percentage of the outstanding balance of the account. A monthly interest charge is also added to the unpaid balance, usually at the rate of 1 1 = 2 percent per month. Ordinarily each customer has his own LINE OF CREDIT , the maximum amount that the customer is permitted to charge. Once this limit is reached, no additional merchandise can be charged to that account until some payment has been made to reduce the outstanding debt. When the economy is strong, many con- sider revolving credit to be beneficial because people are more likely to make purchases with their credit cards. In a weak economy, fewer people can obtain credit because more people are unemployed or in danger of losing their jobs; as a result, people use their credit cards less frequently. Ac cording to the Federal Reserve, the public cut its revo lving credit spending in June 2009 by $26.1 billion, the largest amount since the agency began keeping records in 1943. REWARD A sum of money or other compensation offered to the public in general, or to a class of persons, for the performance of a special service. It is commonplace for the police to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of an offender or for a pet owner to post notices in a neighborhood offering a reward for the return of a lost dog or cat. In legal terms, the person promis ing a reward is offering to enter into a contract with the person who performs the requested action, that is, turning in a criminal or returning a lost pet. Performance will be rewarded with money or some other compensation. Therefore, the legal concepts involving rewards are derived from the law of contracts. An actual, valid offer must be made to create a contract of reward. The offer is merely a proposal or a conditional promise by the person offering the reward, known legally as the offerer. It is not a consummated contract until the requested action is performed. The person offering the reward can do so on any terms she wishes, and the terms must be met before the reward can be recovered. The subject matter of the offer can entail the discovery of information leading to the arrest and conviction of a person, the discovery of stolen property and the apprehension of the thief, the return of lost property, or the recovery or rescue of a person. A prize or premium can be a valid offer of a reward for exhibits, architectural plans, paint- ings, the best performa nce in a tournament, the suggestion of a name, or the achievement of the best time in a race. Any persons, including corporations, legally capable of making a contract can bind them- selves by an offer of reward. Legislatures have the power to offer rewards for acts that will be of public benefit. Legislatures, however, typi- cally empower officers, such as the governor, the U.S. attorney general, or a federal marshal, to offer rewards for certain purposes, such as the apprehension of criminals. Unless a statute requires the offer to be in writing, the offer of reward can be made orally. An offer can be made by a private contract with a particular person or by an advertisement or public statement on television or radio, or in a newspaper, handbill, or circular. A contract of reward , like any contract, must be supported by considerati on, something of value. The consideration that supports the promise of reward is the trouble or inconve- nience resulting to the person who has acted on the faith of the promise. Because an unaccepted offer of reward grants no contractual rights, the offer can be revoked or canceled at any time prior to its acceptance by performance. Once a person has performed or partially performed the requested action, an offer of reward cannot be revoked to deprive a person of compensation. An offer must be revoked either in the way in which it was made or in a manner that gives the revocation the same publicity as the offer. A later offer, in different terms from the first, does not revoke the first offer. Generally an offer of reward that has no time limit is considered to have been withdrawn after a reasonable time. What constitutes a reasonable period of time depends largely on the circum- stances under which the offer was made. In some jurisdictions a reward for the discovery of criminal offenders only lapses when the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS has expired against the crime. A reward can be claimed only by a person who has complied with the conditions of the offer before it expires or is revoked. Perfor- mance can be completed by a third person, such GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 376 REWARD as an agent or servant, who is acting on behalf of the claimant’s interest. When the reward is offered for information leading to an arrest and conviction, the return of property, the location of a missing person, or for other purposes, the person who furnishes the information is entitled to the reward. This rule applies even if, in the case of arrest, the person does nothing more than disclose the information and others make the physical capture. The informant need not become involved in the prosecution or appear as a witness at the offender’s trial to collect the reward. The information must be adequate and timely for a person to collect a reward. If a criminal has surrendered or the information was already known when the informant pro- vided it, no reward will be given. Likewise, if the information does not lead to the desired end included in the initial offer, such as an arrest and conviction, or the recovery of property, the reward will be denied. However, when the reward is for the detection or discovery of an offender, a conviction is not necessary as long as the discovery or arrest occurs. When a reward is offered for the apprehen- sion or arrest of a criminal, a personal arrest by the claimant is usually not necessary. The arrest of the wanted person must be lawful, no matter who makes it. Those making an unlawful arrest cannot recover the reward because an agreement for an unlawful arrest is against public policy and unenforceable. If the offender voluntarily surrenders or is en route to surren- der, the captors have not earned the reward. Generally when a reward is offered for the arrest and conviction of an offender, the person claiming the reward must have caused both the arrest and subsequent conviction because both are conditions of recovery under the contract. The reward in such a case cannot be appor- tioned between what is due for the arrest and what is due for the conviction. When lost property is involved, some states have statutes that provide for a reward for the finder or for compensation for the expense of recovering and preserving the property. If only a proportionate share is returned, the finder is entitled to a proportionate part of the reward. When such a statute does not exist, however, a finder has no right to a reward for the return of property to its owner if none has been offered. If the offered reward is definite and certain, the finde r has a lien on the property in the amount of the reward until it is paid. A lien is a charge against property to secure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation. For example, if John offers a reward of $100 for the return of his missing motorcycle and Bob goes looking and finds it, Bob can file a lien for $100 against the motorcycle with the local court if John does not pay him the reward . If the offer is indefinite, such as one that states “liberal reward” for the return of the motorcycle, there is no lien on the property. Except in the case of statutory rewards, the general rule is that the person who claims the reward must have performed the services knowing of the offer and for the purpose of collecting the reward. For example, if Bob happens to find John’s motorcycle in a ditch and returns it to John not knowing that he had offered a $100 reward, Bob cannot claim the This 1865 poster offered a reward for three men (John H. Surratt, John Wilkes Booth, and David Herold) alleged to have been involved in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION REWARD 377 . may GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RETROACTIVE 371 not suffice to warrant its retroactive application. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Critics of state sex offender registration laws have. date. REVENUE Return or profit such as the annual or periodic rents, profits, interest, or income from any type GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 372 RETURN of real or PERSONAL PROPERTY,. PROSECUTION, were GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION REVIVAL OF AN ACTION 373 considered personal and abated when one of the parties died. In the early twenty-first century, most lawsuits