Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In short, an Indian cannot today gain a right of occupancy simply by occupying public land, as the Indians did in Cramer. Under current law, that occupancy could not be viewed as undertaken with the implied consent of the government, as was the occupancy in Cramer. We therefore conclude that any individual occupancy rights acquired by the Danns ...
In 2014 the California Court of Appeals clarified the Act's provision concerning a rent-control exemption based on a "certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995." [ 46 ] The provision was held to apply only to certificates of occupancy that preceded the residential use of the unit.
A certificate of occupancy is evidence that the building complies substantially with the plans and specifications that have been submitted to, and approved by, the local authority. It complements a building permit —a document that must be filed by the applicant with the local authority before construction to indicate that the proposed ...
"Tenant's current lease appears to grant tenants strong long term rent rate amount restrictions, unconventional method of rental payment, and possible occupancy rights until 2053."
As the author, Assemblyman Matt Haney, D-San Francisco, said during testimony Wednesday, more than 100 human rights groups, including ACLU California Action and ACCE Action, ...
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title (also known as "original Indian title" or "Indian right of occupancy"). Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish ...
Between 2020 and 2022, insurance companies declined to renew 2.8 million homeowner policies in California, including 531,000 in Los Angeles County, according to data from the California Department ...
Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Tribal nation's right of occupancy (or "aboriginal title") may be eliminated by the United States without any compensation.