Use Of The Neighbouring Sports Turf Voiced By Jim, Tom And Marie Essay

5. If students were in an unauthorized area of school grounds the school may not be held liable or if school officials had exercised all viable options in dealing with a threatening situation.

Since the land claim by the Mohawks had been rejected a few years prior, there was no government objection to the development.13 In March of 1990, members of the Mohawk society set up a protest in Oka with great anger over the expansion of the golf course.14 The Mohawk were especially upset that the expansion would occur on top of an ancestral burial ground. In addition, it would occur on land they thought they had been granted in the 1700 's. Furthermore, this is the land that was disputed in the 1961 law suit. Some members of the Mohawk community built a barricade as a form of protest, preventing construction crews from entering what they believed was their land. The barricades were also set up along major highways as well as the Mercier Bridge.15

The proprietary right is protected by overriding interest under Section 70(1)(f) of Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA1925). Limitation Act 1980 stated requirement towards the squatter where he is in factual possession to the land for a period of 12 years continuously and is not objected by the land owner, he will obtain a title towards the land. However, Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) brings changes towards this proprietary right where it provides a new set of rules which

more. Life was high paced and things that you could experience but this was all after the war.

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

§ 75.007. TRESPASSERS. (a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

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.

Rules: The majority of jurisdictions in the United States allow for recovery in cases of trespass to land, and in this case Farmer would have grounds to file a claim for intentional tort against Pilot, as his privately owned land was trespassed on, with the action resulting in quantifiable damage to Farmer's valuable crops. The courts must decide whether or not Pilot's landing of the plane in Farmer's field constitutes an intentional act, or simply an act of negligence on Pilot's part. To do so, they must examine the three elements of trespass to land: Voluntary Act, Intent, and Damages. Another aspect of this case that the courts would consider is that of liability, as according to an article published by the Harvard Law Review, "cases of liability are those in which the defendant generates a disproportionate, excessive risk of harm, relative to the victim's risk-creating activity ... (and) a pilot or an airplane owner subjects those beneath the path of flight to nonreciprocal risks of harm" (Fletcher, 1972).

3. Discuss the factors that a judge must consider reaching a decision in a private nuisance action.

The tenants believe that the land is theirs because their ancestors fought and killed for this land. Generation and generation this family have harvested and made this land suitable for future generations. That is why they believe the land is theirs and not the banks.

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

Like the defendant in Moore, Herrera is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in this action, because she could not have known or realized that the rock towers on her property would pose an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to Maria. Herrera’s private property is located in a remote location in Arizona where she allows adults to view her land art by appointment only. It is reasonably understandable that Herrera does not like uninvited or unwanted individuals on her property at anytime. Moreover, since the land art was for adults only to view, she never allowed children on her property to view her land art. As a result, no injuries were ever reported from the adults who visited and viewed her land art.

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.

[R] The first is a trespasser. A trespasser is one who enters the land of another without the consent of the owner. The only duty a landowner owes a trespasser is to not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser. Sanders v. Perfecting Church, 303 Mich.App. 1,4, 840 N.W.2d 401, 404 (2013). [R] The second status is a licensee. A licensee is a person, such as a social guest, that has the landowner’s permission to enter the land. Id. at 4, 840 N.W.2d at 404.The duty a landowner has to a licensee is to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers that the landowner is aware or should have awareness of, if the danger is not open or obvious. Id. at 5, 840 N.W. 2d at 404. “Social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit.” Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 592, 614 N.W.2d 88,91-92 (2000). [R]The last status of those entering the property of another is a business invitee. Because of the business context, the landowner has an additional duty that extends beyond that of the duty to a licensee. The landowner has an obligation to inspect the premises as to any dangers and, if