Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In civil law countries, possession is not a right but a (legal) fact, which enjoys certain protection by the law. It can provide evidence of ownership but does not in itself satisfy the burden of proof. For example, ownership of a house is never proven by mere possession of a house.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
The statute did not impose liability for mere possession, though Congress could easily have done so if it had wanted to. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit's mistake stemmed from its defining "use" by "accessibility and proximity," a standard that in practice swept up more than active employment but most instances of mere possession.
United States v. Salvucci 448 U.S. 83 (1980) was a Supreme Court case ruling that "automatic standing" to file a Fourth Amendment claim based on mere possession of a seized item lacks constitutional merit. [1] [2]
Adverse possession in common law, and the related civil law concept of usucaption (also acquisitive prescription or prescriptive acquisition), are legal mechanisms under which a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property, usually real property, may acquire legal ownership based on continuous possession or occupation without the permission of its legal owner.
It has been argued that in some situations, possession is ten-tenths of the law. [6] While the concept is older, the phrase "Possession is nine-tenths of the law" is often claimed to date from the 16th century. [7] In some countries, possession is not nine-tenths of the law, but rather the onus is on the possessor to substantiate his ownership. [8]
Possession holds a special place in that it has been criminalized but under common law does not constitute an act. Some countries like the United States have avoided the common law conclusion in Regina v. Dugdale [9] by legally defining possession as a voluntary act. As a voluntary act, it fulfills the requirements to establish actus reus. [10 ...
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. [1]