Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Pierson v. Post is generally considered the most famous property law case in American legal history. [1] Although it only involved a dispute over which of two men deserved ownership of a fox, adjudicating the dispute required determining at what point a wild animal becomes "property".
The case was based upon a dispute regarding the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky (also known as the Third Presbyterian Church). [3] [2] Because the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church had a clear internal authority structure, the court granted control of the property to that group, even though it was only supported by a minority of the congregation.
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Takings Clause ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Not every famous estate fight is over money, though. ... the 24/7 Wall St. list of the Most Infamous Family Estate Feuds is based as much on the notoriety of the cases as the size of the estates ...
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938) The Norris–La Guardia Act of 1932 prohibits employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute, even when such dissemination occurs on an employer's private property.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), commonly known as the Ghostbusters ruling, was a case in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.The court held that a house, which the owner had previously advertised as haunted by ghosts, was legally haunted for the purpose of an action for rescission brought by a subsequent purchaser of the house.
In the context of property law it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to ...