Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
That is, the owner of property must be able to exclude others from the thing in question, even though the right to exclude is subject to limitations. [8] By implication, the owner can use the thing, unless another restriction, such as zoning law, prevents it. [1] Other traditionalists argue that three main rights define property: the right to ...
The bundle of rights is a metaphor to explain the complexities of property ownership. [1] Law school professors of introductory property law courses frequently use this conceptualization to describe "full" property ownership as a partition of various entitlements of different stakeholders.
Pedis possessio is a legal phrase in common law used to describe walking on a property to establish ownership; this concept involves the establishment of first possession of land. By walking on a property and defining its bounds, possession is established. Legal dictionaries [2] put forth this definition.
At common law, property owners held title to all resources located above, below, or upon their land. Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell") [1] is a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also the air above and ...
Property can also be distinguished by whether or not it is owned with exclusive rights, such rights grant owners a monopoly to refuse ownership to non-owners. Concerning ownership of means of production and delineating which groups receive the direct profits, capitalism's private ownership is distinguished from socialism's social ownership. [13]
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
Possession of a thing for long enough can become ownership by termination of the previous owner's right of possession and ownership rights. In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an end the owner's right to recover exclusive possession of a property without losing the ownership of it, as when an adverse easement for use is granted by ...