Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Perhaps the first owner of your house granted your neighbor access to a dock on your property in perpetuity, or the city has retained an easement to access power lines that run across the back ...
Text of the law is the property of the state of New Hampshire, and can be read and searched without the annotations on the state web site. [1] The annotations are value added by Thomson West. The numbering of laws becomes obsolete through subsequent work of the legislature.
The law of New Hampshire is the state law of the U.S. state of New Hampshire. It consists of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, as well as the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, and precedents of the state courts.
Since theft is the unlawful taking of another person's property, an essential element of the actus reus of theft is absent. [2] The finder of lost property acquires a possessory right by taking physical control of the property, but does not necessarily have ownership of the property. The finder must take reasonable steps to locate the owner. [1]
The Supreme Court will decide a property rights dispute on whether government entities violate the Constitution when they seize homes for failure to pay taxes.
The stepmother of missing New Hampshire girl Harmony Montgomery faces new charges that are unrelated to the child's disappearance.. Kayla Montgomery, 31, has been charged with two counts of ...
Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods.. In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods (or property) and knew they were stolen, then the individual may be charged with a crime, depending on the value of the stolen goods, and the goods are returned to the original owner.
Amicus curiae briefs were filed by the American Psychological Association, [4] the Innocence Network, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. [5]The U.S. Supreme Court [6] delivered its 8–1 decision on January 11, 2012, deciding that judicial examination of eyewitness testimony was required only in the case of police misconduct.