Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The tree owners spent $37,000 on attorney fees, before trimming their trees. In Culver City, California, a furniture and cabinet maker spent $80,000 in May 2006 on solar panels to reduce his electric bill. The system worked well for two years, until his neighbor spent $60,000 to plant palm trees along the property line.
If your property is damaged by a fallen tree, whether it originated from your property or a neighbor’s, your first move should be to contact your homeowners insurance company. From there, your ...
An encroachment is tresspass without permission, and you can do something about it. If your neighbor has taken a few feet of your land when building his fence, you can take steps to take back your ...
Mosk. Moore v. Regents of the University of California was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. In 1976, John Moore was treated for hairy cell leukemia by physician David Golde, a cancer researcher at the ...
In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.
California Civil Code 833 states that if a tree’s trunk is solely on the land of one’s neighbor, the tree belongs to them even if the roots grow into another property. While California’s ...
Dissent. Myrick. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255; 10 P. 674; (1886), is a historic case in the conflict between riparian and appropriative water rights. Decided by a vote of four to three in the Supreme Court of California, the ruling held that appropriative rights were secondary to riparian rights. [1]