George P. Jr Costigan

Publications

• Review Article
  55 HARV. L. REV. 324 (1941) · Harvard Law Review · 1941

• Review Article
  48 HARV. L. REV. 882 (1935) · Harvard Law Review · 1935
• Review Article
  47 HARV. L. REV. 1295 (1934) · Harvard Law Review · 1934
• Review Article
  43 YALE L.J. 685 (1934) · Yale Law Journal · 1934
• Those Protective Trusts Which Are Miscalled "Spendthrift Trusts" Reëxamined
  22 CAL. L. REV. 471 (1934) · California Law Review · 1934
• Note
  22 CAL. L. REV. 660 (1934) · California Law Review · 1934
• Those Protective Trusts Which Are Miscalled Spendthrift Trusts Reexamined
  22 CAL. L. REV. 471 (1934) · California Law Review · 1934
• Review Article
  42 YALE L.J. 160 (1932) · Yale Law Journal · 1932
• The Full Remarks on Advocacy of Lord Brougham and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn at the Dinner to M. Berryer on November 8, 1864
  19 CAL. L. REV. 521 (1931) · California Law Review · 1931
• Review Article
  30 COLUM. L. REV. 1083 (1930) · Columbia Law Review · 1930
• Review Article
  18 CAL. L. REV. 449 (1930) · California Law Review · 1930

• Review Article
  39 HARV. L. REV. 526 (1926) · Harvard Law Review · 1926
• Review Article
  25 MICH. L. REV. 94 (1926) · Michigan Law Review · 1926
• Review Article
  14 CAL. L. REV. 145 (1926) · California Law Review · 1926
• Theory of Chancery in Protecting against the Cestui Que Trust One Who Purchases from a Trustee for Value and without Notice
  12 CAL. L. REV. 356 (1924) · California Law Review · 1924
• Review Article
  31 YALE L.J. 569 (1922) · Yale Law Journal · 1922
• Review Article
  20 MICH. L. REV. 373 (1922) · Michigan Law Review · 1922
• Implied-in-Fact Contracts and Mutual Assent
  33 HARV. L. REV. 376 (1920) · Harvard Law Review · 1920

• Review Article
  16 MICH. L. REV. 214 (1918) · Michigan Law Review · 1918
• Review Article
  6 CAL. L. REV. 167 (1918) · California Law Review · 1918
• Review Article
  17 COLUM. L. REV. 648 (1917) · Columbia Law Review · 1917
• Review Article
  4 VA. L. REV. 682 (1917) · Virginia Law Review · 1917
• Review Article
  26 YALE L.J. 805 (1917) · Yale Law Journal · 1917
• Constructive Trusts Based on Promises Made to Secure Bequests, Devises, or Intestate Succession
  28 HARV. L. REV. 237 (1915) · Harvard Law Review · 1915
• Constructive Trusts Based on Promises Made to Secure Bequests, Devises, or Intestate Succession. [Continued]
  28 HARV. L. REV. 366 (1915) · Harvard Law Review · 1915
• The Classification of Trusts as Express, Resulting, and Constructive
  27 HARV. L. REV. 437 (1914) · Harvard Law Review · 1914
• The Date and Authorship of the Statute of Frauds
  26 HARV. L. REV. 329 (1913) · Harvard Law Review · 1913
• Review Article
  11 COLUM. L. REV. 298 (1911) · Columbia Law Review · 1911
• The Doctrine of Farrell vs. Lockhart and Its Relation to Other Rules Applicable to the Location of Mining Claims. Part II
  11 COLUM. L. REV. 723 (1911) · Columbia Law Review · 1911
• The Doctrine of Farrell vs. Lockhart and Its Relation to Other Rules Applicable to the Location of Mining Claims. Part I
  11 COLUM. L. REV. 593 (1911) · Columbia Law Review · 1911
• Review Article
  20 YALE L.J. 160 (1910) · Yale Law Journal · 1910

• Review Article
  22 HARV. L. REV. 619 (1909) · Harvard Law Review · 1909
• Review Article
  9 COLUM. L. REV. 643 (1909) · Columbia Law Review · 1909
• Review Article
  7 MICH. L. REV. 534 (1909) · Michigan Law Review · 1909
• Change of Position as a Defense in Quasi-Contracts: The Relation of Implied Warranty and Agency to Quasi-Contracts
  20 HARV. L. REV. 205 (1907) · Harvard Law Review · 1907
• The Doctrine of Boston Ice Company v. Potter
  7 COLUM. L. REV. 32 (1907) · Columbia Law Review · 1907
• The Conveyance of Lands by One Whose Lands Are in the Adverse Possession of Another
  19 HARV. L. REV. 267 (1906) · Harvard Law Review · 1906
• The History of the Adoption of Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution and a Consideration of the Effect on Judgments of That Section and of Federal Legislation
  4 COLUM. L. REV. 470 (1904) · Columbia Law Review · 1904