Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
There are two main views on the right to property in the United States, the traditional view and the bundle of rights view. [6] The traditionalists believe that there is a core, inherent meaning in the concept of property, while the bundle of rights view states that the property owner only has bundle of permissible uses over the property. [1]
The right to property, or the right to own property (cf. ownership), is often [how often?] classified as a human right for natural persons regarding their possessions.A general recognition of a right to private property is found [citation needed] more rarely and is typically heavily constrained insofar as property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for ...
United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The United States government claimed a public right to fly over Thomas Lee Causby's farm located near an airport in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
"In situations where there is a lawful arrest, but no prosecution, there are no clear rules on retaining personal property. In these cases, police have been confiscating phones to punish protestors."
United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002) is a United States Supreme Court ruling that held a tenant possesses an individual right in their own estate to the level to constitute "rights to property" for the purpose of a lien. [1] [2]
The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, holding that because the very statute that created the property right in continued employment also specified the procedures for discharge, and because those procedures were followed, Loudermill was, by definition, afforded all the process due ...
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled 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 unconstitutional.