The United States Of Texas Law Essay

We follow regulations everyday of our lives. Whether it be making a complete stop at a stop sign, paying our taxes, or refraining ourselves from cutting off the tag of a mattress. It’s important to know what rules we and our elected officials are held accountable for. Being aware and knowing the difference between the United States and Texas Constitution allows citizens to be apprehensive of what is happening in our government. The topics on the amending and impeachment system and the Judicial and Executive Branch grant insight of the proceedings in our governments.

On September 17, 1787, the U.S. constitution was signed. The U.S. constitution is a document that has a set of rules, guidelines, and principles that governs our nation. This constitution is the oldest written national document and has had 27 amendments. The current Texas constitution is the seventh document written for Texas. The previous six were all when Texas was still apart of Mexico. The current constitution hasn’t been revised since 1876, which makes it the longest state constitution in the United States.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

The Texas judicial system has been called one of the most complex in the United States, if not the world. It features five layers of courts, several instances of overlapping jurisdiction, and a bifurcated appellate system at the top level. The structure of the system is laid out in Article 5 of the Texas Constitution.

To first start, I must say that in the last fifteen weeks of class I did learn a lot about Texas government and how does the state manage the power between the politician and the people that elect them and also how must of the laws and major decisions are taken and how everyone in the state take a big part at the time of making a change, make proposed change a law or apply for a new law.

The current Texas Constitution was ratified in 1876. It was a natural and necessary reaction to the previous constitution which was imposed by carpetbaggers and radical reformists. The new constitution better represented the political culture of home-grown Texans: limited government and maximum freedom of the citizens. This constitution not only limited the power of government, it also limited governmental terms and set the salaries of government officials. Farmers and [then] conservative democrats were primarily responsible for the current Texas Constitution.

In 1822, Stephen F. Austin established one of the first courts in Texas and appointed a provisional justice of peace. Since Texas was a part of Mexico at the time, the Mexican governor replaced the justice of peace with three elected officials. (Utexas) Soon after Independence, the republic of Texas under the 1836 Constitution, established a supreme court and allowed Congress to create inferior courts. Judges in such courts were to be elected by Congress. Counties, at the time, had County and Justice of Peace courts, whose judges were popularly elected. With the entrance of Texas into the Union and the adoption of numerous constitutions during the period, Texas retained a similar judicial structure. The current 1876 Constitution created a

Specifically, the court relied on Gorte v Dept of Transp, 202 Mich App 161, 164; 507 NW2d 797, 799 (1993). In Gorte, the plaintiff filed a complaint for adverse possession against the state on March 3, 1988 claiming that he held title to land via adverse possession from the state. Id. at 164. MCL 600.5821 was amended to preclude adverse possession claims against the state and became effective on March 1, 1988, prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Id. The trial court held that since 1966, plaintiff and his predecessors had adversely possessed the disputed acreage and that the amendment to MCL 600.5821 did not bar plaintiff’s adverse possession claim because he had a vested property right before March 1, 1988. Id. In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals

Facts: Plaintiff is claiming title to property via adverse possession because she and her husband resided on said property from 1951-1963. In 1951, plaintiff and her husband acquired ownership of property. In 1955, they borrowed $4,000 from Blue using the property to secure said loan. Blue assigned their interest in the deed over to Moheno. In 1958 the trust deed was foreclosed upon and the property was purchased by Moheno. In 1960, Moheno transferred the property to Berkey, her husband. In 1961, Berkey incurred debt against the property by borrowing $8,000 from Escoto. In 1962, Berkey gave the plaintiff (Harvey) a grant deed to the property as a civil suit settlement. In 1964, the Berkey-Escato trust was foreclosed upon and the defendant (Nurick) purchased it and was given a trustee’s deed. The plaintiff and her husband continually resided on the property, first as owners and

If State B enacts “Race” recording statute that one who records the deed first to the courthouse obtain the title. In this case, the Buyer won the “race” for recording the deed before Abe filed the recover to possession. If the recording statute is “Notice” that if second purchaser had no notice of first, the second purchaser gets the land if he filled the state’s requirements. In this case, the Buyer will get the Whiteacre too. Finally, if State B enacts race-notice recording statute that the second grantee must 1) record before the first grantee, and 2) purchase without notice of the first grantee’s claim. In this case, the Buyer will get the Whiteacre as

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.

Third element of adverse possession is that the possession must be continuous and peaceable for the required period of time. Assuming that the state in question has an adverse

The issue raised by this appeal is whether the holder of a remainder interest in a parcel of land may prohibit the life tenant of such property from destroying structures on the land.

After the sale of real property a deed is created in the buyers name, and depending on what kind of deed was purchased will determine how much risk the new own has anagist other claims.

improved the public property in some manner, he can officially lay his claim to it. Owning