Chapter 12 in Law 12 textbook

(b) An owner, lessee, or occupant of land does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land and is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except that an owner, lessee, or occupant owes a duty to refrain from injuring a trespasser wilfully, wantonly, or through gross negligence.

The second issue is the tort of nuisance, which could be compared to the tort of trespass to land. “Nuisance occurs when the defendant unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its own land.” (McInnes, 112) Once Maldini recognized who Smiley was, his enjoyment of land was interfered with. Maldini was worried that Smiley

With this information that highlights the key responsibilities of a judge, we can better understand that the judge is enforcing the law much like a police officer does so within the community. A Judges enforce the law with a courtroom in order for justice to take place. For example, in the Sterling case Superior Court Judge Michael Levanas heard both sides of the oral arguments presented. His ruling on the case wasn’t based on personal feelings. It was based on facts, enthralling oral arguments, and his understanding of the law.

“A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public. Harmful conduct may be both a public and private nuisance simultaneously; the case law distinctions between the two are often blurred.” (McAdams, 2009)

Under Arizona law, to determine whether an attractive nuisance claim is enforceable, the court must consider if the condition is artificial and the elements listed: “(1) the place where the condition is maintained is one upon which the possessor knows or should know that such children are likely to trespass, and (2) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or should know and which he realizes or should realize as involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling in it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (4) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition is slight as compared to the risk to young children involved therein.” Buekeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren, 46 P.2 1068, 1071 (Ariz. 1935). Both parties have agreed that the condition is artificial. This motion is to set forth that the first two elements are met.

According to Wikipedia Eminent domain is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. However, it can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character

In order to claim trespass, there must be a physical intrusion upon the property of another without the proper permission from the person legally entitled to possession of that property. Intrusion can occur when an actor intentionally enter the possessed land or when an actor causes something else to enter the land. For this claim, there does not need to be intent to harm for there to be liability. In the first project, metals and

B) The attractive nuisance doctrine is an exception that can hold a defendant liable in situations where a child is unaware of the dangers present, disregarding if the child was trespassing or not. To establish liability under this doctrine the plaintiff must prove these elements were present; 1) the owner knows the location where the condition exists will likely be trespassed by children 2) the owner knows or has reason to know that the condition has the likelihood of causing a risk of

359). The government does have the right to take Martin’s beach property, however in closer examination the question becomes if this scenario constitutes public purpose. In Kelo et al., v. City of New London, the Supreme Court of the United States expanded the abilities of government’s use of eminent domain by relaxing the requirement of public use. The Court determined that the government could take property to promote economic development. The Court went on to say that the ruling sets the Federal baseline, and does not preclude States from placing stricter requirements to limit the power of the government regarding eminent domain (Kubasek, et al, 2015, p. 360). To date, North Carolina has not successfully passed a law that would limit the standard set by the Supreme Court. The North Carolina House voted in February 2015 and overwhelmingly passed a bill that would limit the power of eminent domain to public use. The proposed amendment, according to ballotpedia.org, would add a Section 19.1 to Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, and could be seen on the ballot in 2016 (2015). A course of action for Martin given the current status of the law is to contest the taking of his property, and aim to come to an agreement with the local government that would give him more than

Lower courts now have the ability to hear cases. This authority, known as jurisdiction, was granted to them by the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction also refers to the territory that a court can exercise its power. This factor also determines its other definition, the ability of a court to hear a case (Legal Information Institute, 2015). There are two components of jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction. Both elements are mandatory for a court to preside over a particular case. This essay defines the two elements giving the requirements of personal jurisdiction in a federal court and further explains the three different types of personal jurisdiction.

Harpwood,V.H. (02 Jun, 2009) has shown that private nuisance means obstruct the others use or enjoy the land or the rights relating to land and other relating interest unlawfully, unlawful interference was caused by unreasonable user. Indirect interference includes affect neighbors '

Statute law also deals with nuisances. The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (“PHWA“) applies to any nuisances that are, or may be, dangerous to health or expressly provides that a nuisance includes any noise that is or is liable to be dangerous to health or noxious, annoying or injurious to personal comfort.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 (1965). AND only applies to objects of unusual character, more than ordinarily attractive, and never applies when the objects are natural and not placed on the property by the landowner. Norton v. Black, 469 P.2D 101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). AND only applies to artificial conditions: “[A]s a matter of law, natural conditions, whenever relocated, do not fall under the attractive nuisance doctrine.” Norton v. Black at

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury

4 Thus a trespass is said to be persistent so that when the performer frames the goal to take, there is a happenstance of a taking and a purpose to for all time deny adequate to fulfill the normal law necessity. The fiction was conceived in a circumstance where the respondent was unmindful of the asset's vicinity at the season of the taking. Be that as it may, one instantly asks why the same justification would not oblige conviction wherever the first taking was a trespass at common law, pre-empting the regular law necessity of act and aim in all cases aside from where the first taking was in accordance with a directly under the common law. The Riley choice has been censured by a hefty portion of England's driving legal advisers of the criminal law, 3 (1853) Dears. C.C. 149, 158. 4 (1853) Dears.