what is a name and arms clause in land law?
458213
I have not found a reference to land law specifically. A name-and-arms clause in a will required the beneficiary to take on the name and arms (crest, coat of arms in heraldry) of the testator.\n\nhttp://www.citizenlaw.com/pdf/n.pdf#search='name%20and%20arms%20clause'\n\nScroll down to name and arms.
900180
1. Constitutional right to bear arms.\n2. Self-defense.\n3. Crime deterent ( Bad guys will not know if you're armed ).
186959
The link below has each states statute of limitations.  \n\nFor more specific laws you may have to look at the state legistlature site, but this link should answer your question.
1110128
I assume you are asking because it relates to some homework you are working on, so I'm only going to give a brief overview. You can look up the details.\n\nThe due process clause of the fourteenth amendment along with equal protection clause serves to incorporate most of the federal notions and application of the bill of rights to the states. These notions are incorporated because they are considered fundamental to the American system of justice. \n\nNot all of the bill of rights are incorporated to the states. For example, the grand jury requirement is not enforced upon the states nor the bail requirement of the eighth amendment. There are others. You can find them by searching the capsule summaries of constitutional law at lexisnexis.com. Or by searching for "incorporation" and the "fourteenth amendment" in your search engine of choice. \n\nThe federal definition of the right, when incorporated to the states, is only the floor level the state must guarantee its citizens. If it chooses the state my extend greater protection then afforded by the federal definition, so long as it doesn't violate any other right.\n\nAs a side note there is a due process clause in the language of the 5th amendment as well. The two due process clauses function is slightly different ways and are a large part of any first year law school course on criminal procedure/bill of rights.\n\nFor specific case examples see the above sources.
859731
Oklahoma....\n\nWe have the "Make My Day" law, and have had for some time.  This one deals with protection of your home.\n\nWe recently passed a bill we call the "Stand Your Ground Law" which says that you can use even deadly force if you feel threatened in a public place.  \n\nIn addition to these wonderful laws, we have a right to carry a concealed weapon, but must be licensed for it.\n\nIf you are against the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and the right to protect yourself with deadly force if attacked.... don't come to Oklahoma.  Oklahoma feels a person has a right to protect themselves in a public place or at home.\n\nAs for protecting property, it seems to me that if I'm there when someone tries to take or destroy my property, it is not a long leap to say they are threatening me with bodily harm because I'm witnessing their felony crime.... so..... while the law says you have to feel threatened with bodily harm, or something like that.... I would feel threatened by violent destructive people and would have to deal with them accordingly.\n\nGod Bless,\n\nSue
848875
basically the purpose of the supremacy clause is to ensure that  the federal law is the "law of the land'. \nFederalism allows for the seperation of powers;  state and federal. sometimes these powers come into conflict with each other. The supremacy clause resolves the conflict by basically saying that no state law or state constituiton or state judge can rule against the constitution of the US. \nThis was previlant when the south attempted secceed from the union based on their state laws. However Federal law trumps state law, it would have been unconstitutional for them to seceed from the union. \nState law cannot "outrank" Federal law.
1124608
The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Unlike the Dormant Commerce Clause, there is no market participant exception to this clause.\n\nIn the case of Corfield v. Coryell (1823), Justice Bushrod Washington determined that the clause protected\n\n    ...in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.     \n \n\n\nIn his explanation of the scope of the rights protected by the clause, Washington included the right to travel through states for business or agricultural purposes, the right of the use of the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, and an exemption from higher taxes than state residents pay.
951504
Supremacy Clause\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\nJump to: navigation, search\nArticle VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause:\n\n"This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." \nThe Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or Constitutions conflict with the clause.
913349
Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
319650
Its an "implied right".  Its not in the constitution.
611023
Here are all of Texas' statutes. You can use the Search tab to find long-arm. I hope this helps and good luck!\n\nhttp://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
212764
It is not legal to occupy someone else's property. There is, however the doctrine of adverse possession that provides that if someone has actual, visible, hostile, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession of the property and possibly makes a claim to the title without being opposed for a long enough period of time, the person owns the property. The way this all plays out varies quite a bit by jurisdiction, but the doctrine is part of our common law and thus is possible in any state. In general, this does not apply to government land.
237575
The right to farm law prevents someone from buying a parcel of land adjacent to a farm, building a house, and turn around and sue the farmer for the smell.  The law sets up protections for farmers.
545018
This is called adverse possession.  \nThe rules vary from state to state.\nThe time varies from state to state.\nIn most states the person claiming as an adverse possessor must also show that he/she had something that made him/her think he/she had a right to that property, e.g. an unclear boundary line.  If this rule is in your state, someone who knew the land was not his/hers would not get possession.\nSome states require that the adverse possessor also pay the property taxes on the disputed land.\n\nBest advice, check with an attorney in your state and take action sooner rather than later.
78116
This question's been bugging me since last night 'cuz it sounded so familiar. Problem was, you got not one, but both names wrong. And the topic is not entirely an issue of residency, but Article IV, the interstate privilege and immunities clause. \n\nThe case name is Hicklin v. Orbeck 437 U.S. 518 (1978) (The Alaska hire case). Here's a cite to the case:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=437&invol=518\n\nHere's a quick synopsis from my outlines (from way back when): Alaska requires the Alaskan residents be given an absolute preference over non-residents for all jobs on the Alaska pipeline. It was held that Alaska's decisions to prefer its own citizens over out of state citizens impairs the out of state citizens' rights under the interstate Privileges and Immunities clause and is invalid. \n\nThe P/I clause prevents a state from discriminating against non-residents regarding rights that are fundamental. The rights that are considered fundamental are related mostly to commerce (right to be employed, practicing your profession,, the right to engage in business, etc). \n\nYou'll have to read the case for all the juicy bits; what I've written comes from notes from years ago.
281373
try this\nhttp://library.findlaw.com/
546393
I suggest you read the constitution.\n\nA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.