What is ownership?. I. THEORETICAL PART. Decribe modes of acquiring ownership (absolute, extensive, accessory).. II. PRACTICE. The Ownership case under the U.S. Law

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 6 из 7Следующая ⇒

What is ownership?

I. THEORETICAL PART

1. Give the definition to the notion “ownership”.

2.Decribe modes of acquiring ownership (absolute, extensive, accessory).

3. Kinds (classification) of ownership. Find the definition to the following kinds of classification:

- the corporeal and incorporeal ownership,

- sole ownership and co-ownership,

- legal and equitable ownership,

- vested and contingent ownership,

- trust and beneficial ownership,

- co- ownership and joint ownership,

- absolute and limited ownership.

II. PRACTICE

1. The Ownership case under the U.S. Law

The case: The administration of a small town in rural Pennsylvania decided to open a private farm (belonged to Mr. B) to the public. The town passed an odd ordinance allowing town officials to snoop around on private property of Mr. B for evidence of gravesites. Then under the authority of the ordinance, the town unilaterally declared part of private land a public “cemetery,” and commanded the owner Mr. B to open his property to the public and maintain the area like a cemetery – pulling weeds, trimming shrubs and otherwise aiding in the public’s ability to view the purported gravesite. The town did not pay Mr. B. Instead it threatened him with $600 daily fines if he failed to comply.

Mr. B tried to protect his rights in a state court.

Questions:

1) Imagine that you are the representative of Mr. B. Try to prepare legal position of Mr. B.

2) What will be decision of the court in the U.S.?

3) Will the decision changes if the case would happen in the RF? What will be decision of the court in the RF?

Some note on the case:

1. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that government pay you when it takes your private property and opens it to the public.

2. There is the Williamson case (Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City.) that prohibited to protect the rights in federal court. The Supreme Court essentially held that property owners would have to file their federal property rights claims in state court before they could go to federal court to enforce their rights.

3. The Supreme Court admitted that the presumption that property owners could finally get in federal court after losing in state court was wrong. Once the property owner lost in state court, he or she would be barred from getting a second bite at the apple by filing in federal court. In other words, the Williamson case closed the federal courthouse doors to federal property rights claims.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 3 4 567 Следующая ⇒