Can anyone give a brief rundown of the Law of Conflicts in relation to property rights?
348598
I'm not a UK lawyer, but it is probably similar to Canada.  There is not a Law of Conflicts that is written down somewhere that you can go read.  It is a body of law - like contract law - based on decided cases.  "Conflicts" is a set of rules that are applied when someone wants to sue, but could do so in two or more jurisdictions.  For example, if you signed your contract with your customer in Country A, then took your pictures in Country B, but the customer lived in Country C - where would the court case take place if there was a dispute between you?  Conflicts laws help decide that for you.\n\nThe actual rules that are applied are really complicated, and situation specific, so there is no way I could explain them here.\n\nYour standard contract says that your intention is to apply UK law to any disputes you may have with your customers.  But, if conflicts laws say otherwise in any particular case, then you would apply the law of the country that the conflicts rules say you would apply.\n\nIf you ever were in a dispute with a customer who lives in a different country, or if the work was done in a different coutry, then, at that time, you should talk to a lawyer to find out the best country in which to litigate it.\n\nIF you don't like that your contract says this, talk to a lawyer to see if you can take it out.
332287
You will have contact that county for forms, as each county is different. As for a lawyer, the court HAS to provide one if he cannot afford one. But the judge will make him fill out an affidavit of indengency. If he owns property, then the judge could make him get a lein against it. As for privledges, that depends on the county, but remember that they would be privledges, not rights. The basic rights afforded would be food, water, medical treatments,protection from the elements, etc. Also check local state for Jail Standards. These will be different than prisons, they should be listed with state.
899469
Try http://www.law.upenn.edu/library/ulc/ulc.htm
263620
You're confusing communal property customs with the English concept of private property.\n\nNo individuals or tribes owned land in perpetutity, but they used it.  And they had very temporary arrangements over who could use it when.  Those arrangements were constantly being renegotiated because it was considered selfish to hold onto land for too long.  How long was a matter of tribe, custom, family, and kin network.  \n\nSo when they "sold" the whites the land, they had no idea that the whites wanted it forever (and most of the time, white people didn't tel them).  That idea never crossed their mind because it made no sense to them.  They sold land to the white people for use under the same rules of tribe, custom, family, and kin network that applied to them.  When white people refused to obey these rules, they were considered theives by native standards.\n\nAnd there wsa a lot of land that was not sold to the Europeans, but was taken by force.  That was also considered stealing in the native context. \n\nJust because there is no concept of private individual property doesn't mean that there is no concept of theft.  It simply means that the concept operates differently.
785068
I think the rules vary from state to state. You will need to check the specific rules for ND.\n\nWhere I live the mineral rights owner can access the property to exploit the minerals but must pay the surface owner damages.
549707
Yes, but the "fair"ness depends on the situation.  If they're taking your land to give to private developers, the private developers obviously couldn't afford to pay the ACTUAL price that land owners would have charge them for it.  So, unethical governments will use imminent domain to steal the land, then they will have the private developers put stores on it that will cause the price of the land to skyrocket.
427094
If the land is left managed for 10 years, the person or entity that's beening using it will have the right to use.\n\nfor example, if A has a land but left it unattended, B live right next to A and has been using the land for farming or whatever, after 10 years B will have the right to use and and there isn't anything A can do about it.  (until B gives up the right)
751057
Squatters' Rights are a familiar expression for adverse possession, which is a means of acquiring title to another's land without being compensated. Adverse possession requires the actual, visible, hostile, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession of the property under a claim of title. This means that those attempting to claim the land are occupying the land exclusively and openly, treating it as if it were their own. Generally, they must do this continuously without a challenge from the lawful owner for a fixed period of time before eventually those in adverse possession, or "squatters", acquire title. If the squatter leaves the land for a period of time or the rightful owners effectively remove the squatter's access, even temporarily during this time period, the "clock'" usually begins running again. The "squatter" has to obtain adverse possession for a certain period of time again in order to acquire title.
581684
you may need to find out if it's copy righted...so were when it became a factor.Others weren't....If you change a certain % of it,you can then use it.The law is a tough one ot read and figure out.It basically protects the orignal person's right to any royalties made off it if it's sold.\n\n'Public Domain' is usually what a place is considered.It's take by what they "eminent domain"..basically meaning it would be in the best interest of all in a community/area.\n like a person's land so a road can bebuilt through that area,lake or pond so many can use it....
1073146
When you own land, you own it free and clear subject to what is known as PETE:\nP: Police powers - the authority of government law enforcement to enforce laws in or on your property\nE: Eminent Domain - the authority of government to take possession of your property given that they have an official use.  Example: a new freeway is being built and they have all the land except yours that is right in the path and they cannot reasonably go around.  It's a legal battle that can take a long time but it is possible.  The governing authority must pay you market value and all expenses related to the sale. (This is what your situation potentially falls under)\nT: Taxes - the authority of government to tax your property and reclaim it if taxes are not paid.\nE: Escheat - the authority of government to reclaim your property and your estate if you die without a will or legal heirs.
203807
Needs more context.  Government laws regulating real estate?
368754
this webpage describes it to great detail\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment
530664
It is going to vary by state, but if you look up your state's laws, (they should be online) then you can find a section of your state law concerning eminent domain. If you had a state listed, I could have located it for you, but since laws vary from state to state, I can't do more than tell you where to look.
371883
Good question, as English common law does not apply.\n\nThe common law rule is you have to take possession of the land for 20 years without the owner complaining, and it's yours.
790468
Actually, there are laws pertaining to this. I have no idea what it's called but look for "property rights" maybe "access" "new property lines"  in Google. It has something to do with after many years, the rights can be "grandfathered" or something like that. You should see a real estate attorney.
598069
http://www.peoples-law.org/housing/ltenant/legal%20info/Bal%20county%20special%20rules%202.html\n\nthat link has alot of Information maybe what you want is there. I hope I helped.
876664
Ownership is a term that most of us take for granted in that if we buy, are given or inherit items, ownership generally follows. However, that the right of ownership is seldom an absolute right.\nIn general, it can be said that an owner's rights are often limited under both common law and statute to take account of the rights of others.\nCommon law remedies to questions of ownership are usually based upon possession and rights to possession. It is generally sufficient simply to prove a better right than the other party and not necessarily to prove absolute ownership. This has the consequence that issues relating to ownership are less likely to come before the courts.