Citing to and elaborating upon three cases we’ve studied and discussed during the course from the Case List provided on the day and time of the exam (Thursday, May 14 at 1-2pm), and strictly following the Rules for Writing, make as strong an argument as you can in the form of a persuasive essay in which you AGREE OR DISAGREE with the statement below. Your essay will be proportionally graded on how well you formulate the issue in each case you select, how well you summarize the rule and reasoning supporting the rule and any relevant exceptions to the rule in each case you select, how well you lay out the court’s analysis in each case you select, how well you state the conclusion of the court in each case you select and how well you have used each case you select to support your argument, pro or con. Judges should always favor the principle of grantor sovereignty (carrying out the grantor’s intent) over free alienability (making sure the property is marketable and free from unreasonable restraints on alienability) in deciding property rights cases. cases Pierson v. Post Popov v. Hayashi Moore v. Regents Intel Corporation v. Hamidi Graduate Johnson v. McIntosh Graduate Howard v. Kunto Graduate Gruen v. Gruen Graduate Cole v. Steinlauf Moore v. Phillips Murphy v. Financial Development Corporation Duncan v. Vassaur State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay Neponsit Property Owners’ Ass’n v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank Sanborn v. McLean Shelley v Kraemer Boomer v. Atlantic Spur and Prah Euclid v. Ambler Kelo v. City of New Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon Penn Central Station v. New York City Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission Commonwealth Building Corp. v. Hirschfield Blackett v. Olanoff Javins v. First National Realty Co. Walls v. Oxford Management Co. Problem of the Day Foundation Development Corporation v. Loehmann’s Inc. Merchants Row Corp. v. Merchants Row Inc. quarian Foundation v Sholom House