Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It has been argued that in some situations, possession is ten-tenths of the law. [6] While the concept is older, the phrase "Possession is nine-tenths of the law" is often claimed to date from the 16th century. [7] In some countries, possession is not nine-tenths of the law, but rather the onus is on the possessor to substantiate his ownership. [8]
California Law Review was the first student-run law review in the Western United States. It is the ninth-oldest surviving law review published in the United States. A companion volume, the California Law Review Online, was launched in 2014, followed by a podcast in 2021. These publications feature shorter articles, essays, blogs, and audio content.
In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. Like ownership, the possession of anything is commonly regulated under the property law of a jurisdiction. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it as well as access to it and control over it.
Davis', presents an interesting example of the interaction of custody factors. It also presents some anomalies that raise questions regarding the consistency of appellate review of custody decisions.
The Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice (RLSJ) promotes the discussion and examination of issues lying at the intersection of social justice and the law. RLSJ publishes legal narratives and analyses of case law and legislation that address the law's interaction with historically underrepresented groups and highlight the law's ...
Whorley argued that the law's prohibition on receiving obscene images was "facially unconstitutional" because "receiving materials is an incident of their possession, and possession of obscene ...
In the decades leading up to the 1970s child custody battles were rare, and in most cases the mother of minor children would receive custody. [5] Since the 1970s, as custody laws have been made gender-neutral, contested custody cases have increased as have cases in which the children are placed in the primary custody of the father.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]