An abstract comprises—or concentrates in
itself—the essential qualities of a larger thing—
or of several things—in a short, abbreviated
form. It differs from a
TRANSCRIPT, which is a
verbatim copy of the thing itself and is more
comprehensive.
CROSS REFERENCE
Abstract of Title.
ABSTRACT OF TITLE
A condensed history, taken from public records or
documents, of the ownership of a piece of land.
An abstract of title, or title abstract, briefly
summarizes the various activities affecting
ownership of a parcel of land. When a person
or business agrees to purchase
REAL ESTATE, that
person or business arranges for an examination
of the history of the property’s title. This
examination is known as a
TITLE SEARCH. A title
search is conducted to determine that the seller
of the property in fact owns the property and
has a free-and-clear title. A free-and-clear title
has no clouds on it, which means that no person
or business other than the seller has an interest
in, or
CLAIM to, the property.
The process of det ermining the precise
ownership of a piece of land by searching an
abstract is complex and laborious. Often, the

exceptions. For example, the Forty-Year Law
holds that no party with a potential claim that
arose over 40 years before can claim an interest in
a property of which one person or business has
been the recorded owner for at least 40 years.
Exceptions are made, however, for those holding
mortgages or contracts with terms that span
more than 40 years and also for prior interests
claimed as school or school district lands,
parkland dedications, or the property of religious
CORPORATIONS or associations.
To perform a title search, the abstractor
must obtain a copy of the abstract from the
county recorder in the county in which the land
is located. Then it takes time to make sense of
the document. The accompanying sample
abstract of title illustrates typical entries.
1. Entry 1 identifies the land in question. The
sample abstract is for platted land, which
is land described by lots and blocks. A
platted parcel spans a certain number o f
feet, on a certain lot, within a certain block,
within a certain city. Another method of
identifying a parcel of land is by
METES AND
BOUNDS
. For metes and bounds land, a
parcel is identified by its boundaries
according to their terminal points and
angles. Platted descriptions are used in

the government to operate as proof of title
for the first governmentally recognized
owner of the land. The land patent shows
the date of the land transfer, the date the
patent was filed with the government,
the particular book of deeds containing
the patent, and the land parcel as de-
scribed in the original entry.
4. Entry 4 reveals that John Doe platted his
quarter of section 36—that is, he subdivided
the land and dedicated it to the public for sale.
The beginning of the entry might read, “Plat
of Stoneybrook Addition to the City of New
Heidelberg.” Note that township 36 has
become, or has been incorporated into, what
is now New Heidelberg. The entry continues
with the date John Doe received approval
from the city of New Heidelberg, the date the
subdivision was filed with the county,
the particular book of plats in which the
subdivision is entered, and the original
description of the land. The subdivision is
entered in the county’s book of plats because
New Heidelberg has chosen to identify its
land parcels by plats, and not metes and
bounds. Other means of identifying land
parcels are sometimes employed. Land is
sometimes identified by acres in rural areas,
and by government lots for land adjacent to
meandering lakes, but most of the land in the

this entry might read, “Lot 1, Block E,
Stoneybrook Addition to City of New
Heidelberg.” The entry also contains infor-
mation on when the warranty deed was
signed and when it was filed with the county.
6. Entry 6 shows that Richard Roe and Ruth
Roe have mortgaged their property to John
Smith. With an interest in lot 1 of block E as
COLLATERAL,SmithhaspaidfortheRoes’
property, and the Roes have undertaken to
repay Smith. The entry shows the date
the mortgage agreement was signed and
the date the mortgage was filed with the
county. The remainder might read, “Book 1
of Mortgages, page 10, to secure $10,000, due
January 10, 1910. Lot 1, Block E, Stoneybrook
Addition.”
7. Entry 7 shows that John Smith has
assigned the mortgage on lot 1, block E,
to William White. In other words, Smith
has sold to White his mortgagee interest in
lot 1, block E. An assignment can occur
for any number of reasons, but often it is a
sale made to satisfy debts. T his particu lar
action is entered in the book of assign-
ments in the county seat.
8. Entry 8 shows that Richard Roe and Ruth
Roe have paid off, or satisfied, the
mortgage (et ux is Latin for “and wife”).
This entry is filed in the book of assign-

John Doe Filed Jan. 1, 1889 .
Book 1 of Deeds, Page 100 .
North 1/4 of Section 36 , T. 32 , R. 22 .
14. John Doe et al. Plat of Stoneybrook E Addition to the City of New Heidelberg .
to Dated Feb. 1, 1889 .
The Public. Filed Feb. 1, 1889 .
Book 1 of Plats, page 200 .
North 1/4 of Section 36 , T. 32 , R. 22 .
25. John Doe, unmarried, Warranty Deed.
to Dated Feb. 1, 1890 .
Richard Roe. Filed Feb. 1, 1890 .
Book 3 of Deeds, page 300 .
Lot 1 , Block E , Stoneybrook Addition to City of New Heidelberg .
26. Richard Roe and Mortgage.
Ruth Roe, his wife, Dated Feb. 1, 1890 .
to Filed Feb. 1, 189
0 .
John Smith. Book 1 of Mortgages, page 10 , to secure $10,000 , due
January 10, 1910 .
Lot 1 , Block E , Stoneybrook Addition.
27. John Smith Assignment of Mortgage No. 6.
to Dated Jan. 1, 1895 .
William White Filed Jan. 1, 1895 .
Book 5 of Assignments, page 100 .
28. William White Satisfaction of No. 6.
to Dated Jan. 1, 1910 .
Richard Roe et ux. Filed Jan. 1, 1910 .
Book 3 of Satisfactions, page 200 .
29. Richard Roe Will and Probate.
to Dated July 1, 1915 .

12. Entry 1 2 reveals that Ruth Roe was unable
to make her mortgage payments to Samuel
Brown, and Brown has sought payment by
exercising his right to force a sale of the
property by foreclosing on the mortgage.
The
FORCED SALE was published in a
newspaper. The dates of public notice,
the publication
AFFIDAVIT, and the service
of notice to Roe are all entered in the
abstract. The certificate of sale and
the date the forced sale was filed with the
county are also included. This entry shows
that Brown has purchased lot 1 at the
resulting sheriff’s sale of the property.
The amount Brown paid would depend on
the value of the real estate and the amount
of the mortgage. The “No. 11” following
“Foreclosure of” simply refers to the court
document number of the foreclosure.
13. Entry 13 shows that Samuel Brown and
Sophy Brown have sold a part of lot 1 to
James Jones by
QUITCLAIM DEED. Generally,
a quitclaim deed transfers title to property
without warranties that the title is free and
clear. Owing to Ruth Roe’s financial
troubles, the Browns are probabl y uncer-
tain of their title’s completeness, so they

abstract has now been defined; it is a
certain northern piece of lot 1 of block E
in the Stoneybrook Addition of New
Heidelberg. The land to the south of this
piece would h ave its own abstract, which
would be identical to this abstract up to
the point that lot 1 was divided up and
part of it sold to Jones. Likewise, the
abstract for the adjacent lot 2 on block E
would have an abstract identical to this
abstract up to the point that John Doe sold
to Richard Roe the ne wly platted land of
section 36 in township 32, range 22.
FURTHER READINGS
Galaty, Fillmore, Wellington J. Allaway, and Robert C. Kyle.
2002. Modern Real Estate Practices. 16th ed. Chicago:
Dearborn Real Estate Education.
Jacobus, Charles J. 1998. Real Estate Law. 2d ed. Florence,
KY: South-Western Education.
Koenig, R. Harry. 1991. How to Lower Your Property Taxes.
New York: Fireside.
Abstract of Title
13. Samuel Brown and Quitclaim Deed.
Sophy Brown, his wife, Date April 1, 1940 .
to Filed April 1, 1940 .
James Jones. Book 27 of Deeds, page 100 .
North 250 feet, front and rear, of Lot 1 , Block 2 ,
NW Addition.
14. Taxes paid, except for year 1940, amounting to $15,000.
15. In re James Jones Petition of Debtor for arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act,

Everything that is contrary to good order estab-
lished by usa ge. Departure from reasonable use;
immoderate or improper use. Physical or mental
maltreatment. Misuse. Deception.
To wrong in speech, reproach coarsely, dispar-
age, revile, and malign.
ABUSE EXCUSE
Description of efforts by some criminal defendants
to negate criminal responsibility by showing
that they could not tell right from wrong due to
abuse by their spouses or parents. Although this
defense is not specifically recognized in substantive
criminal law, it has been used successfully in some
cases to prove, for example, the insanity defense.
Using prior sex ual or other physical abuse as
evidence in a criminal defense is largely a result
of research regarding mental disorders caused
by such abuse. Psychologists and other
researchers have identified disorders, including
post-traumatic stress disorder and battered
woman syndrome, as causes for severe emo-
tional instability that can lead to violent acts by
the victim against his or her abuser. Some
writers have advocated more widespread use of
such evidence to mitigate the
PUNISHMENT of
victims who commit violent acts.
Other scholars and writers disagree, noting
that substantive
CRIMINAL LAW does not recognize

out of fear. In raising the evidence of abuse, the
defense sought to reduce the conviction from
murder to voluntary
MANSLAUGHTER. The defense
won a victory of sorts when the first trial ended in
a
HUNG JURY because the jurors could not agree
whether the brothers were killers or whether they
acted out due to the years of alleged abuse they
had suffered. In a second trial in 1995, however,
the jury convicted the brothers of first-degree
murder notwithstanding the evidence of abuse,
and the judge sentenced them to life in prison
without the possibility of
PAROLE.
In 1993 Lorena Bobbitt was indicted for
MALICIOUS wounding after cutting off her sleeping
husband’s penis during the middle of the night.
At her trial, her defense team introduced
evidence of a history of sexual and physical abuse
committed by the husband, John, against Lorena.
Unlike the Menendez case, where the defense
conceded that the brothers were criminally
responsible for their actions, Lorena’s defense
team used the evidence to prove the insanity
defense. In 1994 a jury found her not guilty of
the crime by reason of insanity.
Scholars have noted that the employment of
the abuse excuse as a defense is more viable if
it is used to prove insanity, which happened in

APPEAL. It does not, however,
necessarily amount to
BAD FAITH, intentional
wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge.
For example, the traditional standard of
APPELLATE review for evidence-related questions
arising during trial is the “abuse of discretion”
standard. Most judicial determin ations are
made based on evidence introduced at
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
. Evidence may consist of oral
TESTIMONY, written testimony, videotapes and
sound recordings,
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE such
as exhibits and business records, and a host of
other materials, including voice exemplars,
handwriting samples, and blood tests.
Before such materials may be introduced into
the record at a legal proceeding, the trial court must
determine that they satisfy certain criteria govern-
ing the admissibility of evidence. At a minimum,
the court must find that the evide nce offered is
relevant to the legal proceedings. Evidence that
bears on a factual or legal issue at s take in a
controversy is considered relevant evidence.
The relevancy of evidence is typically
measured by its
PROBATIVE value. Evidence is
generally deemed probative if it has a tendency

S.W.3d 662 [Ky. 2000]). In upholding the trial
court’s decision to admit the evidence, the
appellate court observed that the photograph
was only used to show the pedestrian’s position
relative to the vehicle at the time of impact and
not to blame the pedestrian for being negligent.
The appellate court also noted that the
LAWYER
objecting to the photograph’sadmissibility
was free to remind the jury of its limited relevance
during
CROSS-EXAMINATION and closing arguments.
An appellate court would find that a trial
court abused its discretion, however, if it
admitted into evidence a photograph without
proof that it was authentic (Apter v. Ross, 781 N.
E.2d 744 [Ind.App. 2003]). A photograph’s
authenticity may be established by a witness’s
personal observations that the photograph accu-
rately depicts what it purports to depict at the
time the photograph was taken. Ordinarily the
photographer who took the picture is in the best
position to provide such testimony.
FURTHER READINGS
Cohen, Ruth Bryna. 2000. “Superior Court Affirms Non Pros
for Failure to Subpoena Own Witness; Trial Court Did
Not Abuse Discretion in Its Application of Civil Procedure
Rule 216.” Pennsy lvania L aw Week ly (October 9).
Hamblett, Mark. 2001. “Circuit Panel Issues Recusal
Guidelines; Says Rakoff Acted Properly In Not Stepping

The landlord starts a lawsuit to either recover
the full amount of rent due or to oust the grocer
and regain possession of the premises. The law
in their state is fairly clear on the question:
A tenant has no right to force a landlord to
make repairs by withholding a portion of the
rent. The landlord knows that she has a good
chance of winning her case, but she also wants
to teac h the grocer a lesson. On the first three
occasions that the case comes up on the court
calendar, the grocer closes his store and appears
in court, but the landlord does not show up. On
the fourth occasion, the landlord comes to court
and wins her case. The grocer, in a separate
action for
ABUSE OF PROCESS, claims that the
landlord is using the court’s power to order him
to appear simply to harass him. The court
agrees and awards him money damages for lost
income and inconvenience.
Abuse of process is a wrong committed
during the course of
LITIGATION. It is a perversion
of lawfully issued process and is different from
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, a lawsuit started witho ut
any reasonable cause.
ABUSIVE
Tending to deceive; practicing abuse; prone to ill-
treat by coarse, insulting words or harmful acts.
Using ill treatment; injurious, improper, hurtful,

recent U.S. history.
Bella Savitsky was born on July 24, 1920, in
New York City and was raised in the Bronx. The
daughter of Russian immigrant Jews, her father
was a butcher who operated the “Live and Let
Live” meat market. As a young girl, she raised
and collected money on behalf of Zionism.
After she graduated from high school, she
attended Hunter College, where she was presi-
dent of the student government. Following
graduation in 1944, she attended Columbia
Law School, where she was the editor of the
LAW
REVIEW
and an outstanding student. In 1946 she
married Martin Abzug, who would go on to
become a successful stockbroker.
After graduating in 1947, Abzug concentrat-
ed her legal practice in the fields of
LABOR LAW
and CIVIL RIGHTS, while also becoming active
in left-wing politics. As an
ATTORNEY for the
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Abzug went to
Mississippi in 1950 to argue the
APPEAL of Willie
McGee, an African American man who had
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
44 ABUSE OF POWER
been convicted of raping a white woman. She

AMENDMENT
, which failed to acquire the necessary
number of states for
RATIFICATION.
A national figure by the mid-1970s, Abzug
sought the
DEMOCRATIC PARTY nomination for the
Senate in 1976. She lost a close race to Daniel
Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). Several campaigns
for New York City mayor and Congress followed,
but Abzug never served in elective office again.
Despite these defeats, she remained active in
efforts for women’s rights. She was president of
the National Commission on the Observance of
International Women’sYear,cofounderofthe
National Women’s Political Caucus, and the
founder of the International Women’s Environ-
mental and Development Organization. In 1995
she played a major role in a world conference on
women’s issues, held in Beijing, China.
Abzug remained active in the women ’s
movement despite numerous health problems that
began in the mid-1980s. She died on March 31,
1998, in New York City following heart surgery.
FURTHER READINGS
Abzug, Bella S., with Mim Kelber. 1984. Gender Gap: Bella
Abzug’s Guide to Political Power for American Women.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Abzug, Bella S. 1972. Bella! Ms. Abzug Goes to Washington.
New York: Saturday Review Press.

1978 Appointed
to President
Carter's Advisory
Committee on
Women; fired
in 1979 for
criticizing
Carter
◆
1984 The
Gender Gap
published
◆
1990 Co-founded the Women's
Environment and Development Organization
◆
1995 Led delegation
to Fourth World
Conference for
Women in Beijing,
China
1998 Died,
New York City
1939–1945
World War II
1966 The National Organization
for Women (NOW) founded
◆
◆
1961–73 Vietnam War

fit, but not necessarily the right to teach evil. The
term encompasses much more than teaching-
related speech rights of teachers.
Educational institutions are communities
unto themselves with rules of their own, and
when conflicts arise, often times the most
common and compelling arguments involve
freedom. As a result, the academic community
energetically explores the nature of freedom in
society at large, and it is often forced to confront
its own concepts of freedom in the process.
The American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) has long led efforts
among educators to define the concept of
ACADEMIC FREEDOM in U.S. COLLEGES AND UNIVER-
SITIES
. In 1940 the AAUP, in conjunction
with the Association of American Colleges (now
the Association of American Colleges and Uni-
versities), drafted and approved the Statement of
Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.The
statement’spurposeisto“promote public
understanding and support of academic freedom
and tenure and agreement upon procedures to
ensure them in colleges and universities.”
According to the statement, educational
institutions should afford full freedom for
teachers to conduct resea rch and publish their
results, subject to their adequate performance in
other academic duties. Teachers should also

organizations.” In a scathing dissent joined by
Justice Hugo L. Black, Douglas argued that such
LEGISLATION created a police state and ran
contrary to the
FIRST AMENDMENT guarantee of
free speech.
Justice Douglas equated academic freedom
with the pursuit of truth. If academic freedom
is the pursuit of truth and is protected by the
First Amendment, reasoned Douglas, then the
New York law should be struck down because
its potential effe ct was to produce standardized
thought. According to Douglas’s dissent, the
New York law created an academic atmosphere
concerned not with intellectual stimulation
but with such questions as “Why was the
history teacher so openly hostile to Franco’s
Spain? Who heard overtones of revolution in the
English teacher’s discussion of The Grapes
of Wrath?” And “What was behind the praise
of Soviet progress in metallurgy in the chemistry
class?” Douglas conceded that the public
school systems need not become “cells for
Communist activities,” but he reminded the
court that the Framers of the
CONSTITUTION “knew
the strength that comes when the mind is free.”
Shortly after the Adler decision, a similar
case arose in New Hampshire that received very
different treatment by the Supreme Court. On

about others and about his lecture, he was held
in contempt of court and sent to the Merr imack
County Jail. The Supreme Court of New
Hampshire affirmed the conviction, and Sweezy
appealed.
The U.S. Supreme Court went on to reverse
the decision. The basis for the reversal was the
New Hampshire statute’s improper grant of
broad interrogation powers to the attorney
general and its failure to afford sufficient
criminal protections to an
ACCUSED. The Court
commented strongly upon the threat such a
statute posed to academic freedom.
The principal opinion, written by Chief
Justice
EARL WARREN, questioned the wisdom of
Wyman’s
LEGISLATIVE inquiry. With regard to the
questions on Sweezy’s lecture to the humanities
class, Warren stated that “[t]o impose any strait
jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our
colleges and universities would imperil the
future of our Nation.”
Justice
FELIX FRANKFURTER wrote a separate
concurring opinion. To Frankfurter, the call of
the Court was to decide the case by balancing the
right of the state to self-protection against
the right of a citizen to academic freedom and

Keyishian case. The Supreme Court has also
held that if school authorities can show
additional independent grounds for discharge,
they may terminate a teacher for disruptive
speech even if a substantial motivation for the
termination was speech on issues of public
concern (Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township
High School Dist. 205, Will County, 391 U.S.
563, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 [1968]; Mt.
Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97
In 1954 Paul M.
Sweezy, a New York
magazine editor and
former Harvard
professor, refused to
answer questions
about his political
associations from
New Hampshire
attorney general Louis
C. Wyman. Sweezy
was jailed for
contempt of court but
later won on appeal.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
ACADEMIC FREEDOM 47