Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A legal threat is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party.
The definition of take can also further extend to comprise the indirect harming of a species via modification of its habitat (see below§ Legal Definition of Take). Taking species of plants or animals is generally regulated and may be prohibited by law depending on the conservation status of the species, geographic area, and/or time of year.
In 1922, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon that governmental regulations that went "too far" were a taking. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the court, stated that "[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."
Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff ...
A legal recourse is an action that can be taken by an individual or a corporation to attempt to remedy a legal difficulty. A lawsuit if the issue is a matter of civil law Contracts that require mediation or arbitration before a dispute can go to court
Extortion is a common law crime in Scotland of using threat of harm to demand money, property or some advantage from another person. It does not matter whether the demand itself is legitimate (such as for money owed) as the crime can still be committed when illegitimate threats of harm are used.
Medical and legal experts say the executive order rejects the reality of sexual and gender diversity, and are concerned about the implications it will have for intersex, nonbinary and transgender ...
Even the taking by a city of a professional sports team's franchise has been held by the California Supreme Court to be within the purview of the "public use" constitutional limitation, although eventually, that taking was not permitted because it was deemed to violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. [7]