Law School

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offense, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects". Private nuisance is the interference with the rights of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the "right of quiet enjoyment" is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed. Definition Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbor interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance. Legally, the term nuisance is traditionally used in three ways: 1. to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (for example, indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney). 2. to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (for example, loud noises or objectionable odors). 3. to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two. However, the "interference" was not the result of a neighbor stealing land or trespassing on the land. Instead, it arose from activities taking place on another person's land that affected the enjoyment of that land.

Sales taxes in the United States are taxes placed on the sale or lease of goods and services in the United States. Sales tax is governed at the state level and no national general sales tax exists. 45 states, the District of Columbia, the territories of Puerto Rico, and Guam impose general sales taxes that apply to the sale or lease of most goods and some services, and states also may levy selective sales taxes on the sale or lease of particular goods or services. States may grant local governments the authority to impose additional general or selective sales taxes. As of 2017, 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon) do not levy a statewide sales tax. California has the highest base sales tax rate, 7.25%. Including county and city sales taxes, the highest total sales tax is in Arab, Alabama, 13.50%. Sales tax is calculated by multiplying the purchase price by the applicable tax rate. The seller collects it at the time of the sale. Use tax is self-assessed by a buyer who has not paid sales tax on a taxable purchase. Unlike the value added tax, a sales tax is imposed only at the retail level. In cases where items are sold at retail more than once, such as used cars, the sales tax can be charged on the same item indefinitely. The definitions of retail sales and taxable items vary among the states. Nearly all jurisdictions provide numerous categories of goods and services that are exempt from sales tax, or taxed at reduced rates. The purchase of goods for further manufacture or for resale is uniformly exempt from sales tax. Most jurisdictions exempt food sold in grocery stores, prescription medications, and many agricultural supplies. Sales taxes, including those imposed by local governments, are generally administered at the state level. States imposing sales tax either impose the tax on retail sellers, such as with Transaction Privilege Tax in Arizona, or impose it on retail buyers and require sellers to collect it. In either case, the seller files returns and remits the tax to the state. In states where the tax is on the seller, it is customary for the seller to demand reimbursement from the buyer. Procedural rules vary widely. Sellers generally must collect tax from in-state purchasers unless the purchaser provides an exemption certificate. Most states allow or require electronic remittance.

Lateral and subjacent support, in the law of property, describes the right a landowner has to have that land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. If a neighbor's excavation or  excessive extraction of underground liquid deposits (crude oil or aquifers) causes subsidence, such as by causing the landowner's land to cave in, the neighbor will be subject to strict liability in a tort action. The neighbor will also be strictly liable for damage to buildings on the landowner's property if the landowner can show that the weight of the buildings did not contribute to the collapse of the land. If the landowner is unable to make such a showing, the neighbor must be shown to have been negligent in order for the landowner to recover damages. If the landowner owns everything beneath the ground on his property, he may convey to another party the rights to mineral deposits under the land and other things requiring excavation, such as easements for buried conduits or for water wells. However, such a conveyance requires the recipient to prevent any damage to the surface of the land caused by the excavation unless the conveyance itself grants express authority for the surface land to be damaged, "as reasonably necessary" for the recipient to exercise his extraction rights. … An assignment is a legal term used in the context of the law of contract and of property. In both instances, assignment is the process whereby a person, the assignor, transfers rights or benefits to another, the assignee. An assignment may not transfer a duty, burden or detriment without the express agreement of the assignee. The right or benefit being assigned may be a gift (such as a waiver) or it may be paid for with a contractual consideration such as money. The rights may be vested or contingent, and may include an equitable interest. Mortgages and loans are relatively straightforward and amenable to assignment. An assignor may assign rights, such as a mortgage note issued by a third party borrower, and this would require the latter to make repayments to the assignee. A related concept of assignment is novation wherein, by agreement with all parties, one contracting party is replaced by a new party. While novation requires the consent of all parties, assignment needs no consent from other non-assigning parties. However, in the case of assignment, the consent of the non-assigning party may be required by a contractual provision.

Embezzlement is the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held or to be used for specific purposes. Embezzlement is a type of financial fraud. For example, a lawyer might embezzle funds from the trust accounts of their clients; a financial advisor might embezzle the funds of investors; and a husband or a wife might embezzle funds from a bank account jointly held with the spouse. The term "embezzlement" is often used in informal speech to mean theft of money, usually from an organization or company such as an employer. Embezzlement is usually a premeditated crime, performed methodically, with precautions that conceal the criminal conversion of the property, which occurs without the knowledge or consent of the affected person. Often it involves the trusted individual embezzling only a small proportion of the total of the funds or resources they receive or control, in an attempt to minimize the risk of the detection of the misallocation of the funds or resources. When successful, embezzlement may continue for many years without detection.

Subject-matter jurisdiction (also called jurisdiction ratione materiae) is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type of cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity. To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment. In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. The federal question jurisdiction statute is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. — 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a U.S. federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead. The United States Constitution, in Article 3, Section 2, grants Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear diversity cases through legislation authorizing such jurisdiction. The provision was included because the Framers of the Constitution were concerned that when a case is filed in one state, and it involves parties from that state and another state, the state court might be biased toward the party from that state. Congress first exercised that power and granted federal trial circuit courts diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Diversity jurisdiction is currently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In 1969, the American Law Institute explained in a 587-page analysis of the subject that diversity is the "most controversial" type of federal jurisdiction, because it "lays bare fundamental issues regarding the nature and operation of our federal union."

An ultrahazardous activity in the common law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured. In the Restatement of the Law 2nd, Torts 2nd, the term has been abandoned in favor of the phrase "inherently dangerous activity." Categories of ultrahazardous activity. Several categories of activities are commonly recognized as being inherently hazardous; those who engage in them are subject to strict liability. These include: Transportation, storage, and use of dynamite and other explosives. Transportation, storage, and use of radioactive materials. Transportation, storage, and use of certain hazardous chemicals Keeping of wild animals (for example animals that are not normally domesticated in that area). Note that in this context, "domesticated" does not merely refer to animals that are commonly bred and raised in captivity, such as alligators. Keeping of domesticated animals that have a known propensity for dangerous behavior (for example keeping a dog that has attacked people before). Someone who is injured by one of these inherently hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under a strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent. In the United Kingdom, this area of law is governed by the rule established in Rylands v Fletcher. Deep pocket as a slang term. The term “deep pockets” (also given as “deep pocket” and “deep pocketed") is attested sparsely in the 1940s through the 1960s but became popular with the litigation explosion of the 1970s. A person with “short arms and deep pockets” is a person (sometimes derided as “miserly” or “cheap") who saves money and doesn’t often spend it. The term “short arms and deep/long pockets” is cited in print from at least 1952. In Ireland, this phrase was attached to a wealthy businessman from Tipparary who, upon his round of drinks, would break his glass on the floor, knowing the owner of the pub would ask him to leave. This was also called the “O’Shea Fiddle”. A writ of execution (also known as an execution) is a court order granted to put in force a judgment of possession obtained by a plaintiff from a court. When issuing a writ of execution, a court typically will order a sheriff or other similar official to take possession of property owned by a judgment debtor. Such property will often then be sold in a sheriff's sale and the proceeds remunerated to the plaintiff in partial or full satisfaction of the judgment. It is generally considered preferable for the sheriff simply to take possession of money from the defendant's bank account. If the judgment debtor owns real property, the judgment creditor can record the execution to "freeze" the title until the execution is satisfied.

Exemptions and incentives. Taxing jurisdictions provide a wide variety of methods a property owner may use to reduce tax. Nearly all jurisdictions provide a homestead exemption reducing the taxable value, and thus tax, of an individual's home. Many provide additional exemptions for veterans. Taxing jurisdictions may also offer temporary or permanent full or partial exemptions from property taxes, often as an incentive for a particular business to locate its premises within the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions provide broad exemptions from property taxes for businesses located within certain areas, such as enterprise zones. The largest property tax exemption is the exemption for registered non-profit organizations; all 50 states fully exempt these organizations from state and local property taxes with a 2009 study estimating the exemption's forgone tax revenues range from $17–32 billion per year. Exemptions can be quite substantial. In New York City alone, an Independent Budget Office study found that religious institutions would have been taxed $627M yearly without such exemptions; all exempt groups avoided paying a combined $13 billion in the fiscal year of 2012 (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012). Payment. Time and manner of payment of property taxes varies widely. Property taxes in many jurisdictions are due in a single payment by January 1. Many jurisdictions provide for payment in multiple installments. In some jurisdictions, the first installment payment is based on prior year tax. Payment is generally required by cash or check delivered or mailed to the taxing jurisdiction. Liens and seizures. Property taxes generally attach to the property; that is, they become an encumbrance on the property which the current and future owners must satisfy. This attachment, or lien, generally happens automatically without further action of the taxing authority. The lien generally is removed automatically upon payment of the tax. If the tax is not paid within a specified period of time (including additional interest, penalties, and costs), a tax sale is held, which may result in either 1) the actual sale of a property, or 2) a lien sold to a third party, who (after another specified period of time) may take action to claim the property, or force a later sale to redeem the lien. Attachment date. The tax lien attaches to the property at a specific date, generally the date the tax liability becomes enforceable. This date, known as the attachment date, varies by state, and in some states by local jurisdiction. Delinquency. Where the property owner does not pay tax by the due date, the taxing authority may assess penalties and interest. The amount, timing, and procedures vary widely. Generally, the penalty and interest are enforceable in the same manner as the tax, and attach to the property.

Prior appropriation adoptions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming all use the prior appropriation doctrine, with permitting and reporting as their regulatory system. Much of the prior appropriation doctrine in the Southwest and Western U.S. states are a legacy from the area being under the civil law systems of Mexico and Spain, where prior appropriation is heavily practiced. California and Texas recognize a dual doctrine system that employs both riparian and prior appropriation rights. Oregon mainly uses the prior appropriation doctrine with some remnants of the riparian doctrine. Landowners have rights to water on their own land at a certain time at which it is then incorporated into the appropriation system. In these cases, riparian rights take precedence, unless they are not claimed by a certain date or are not used within a certain number of years. Eight states engage in prior appropriation while not recognizing the riparian doctrine: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.  Arizona adopted the prior appropriation doctrine such that a person could acquire this water right simply by applying it to beneficial use and posting an appropriation notice at the point of diversion. Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 45-141 Waters (2021). On June 12, 1919, they enacted the Public Water Code in which the person must apply for and obtain a permit for water use. However, prior appropriation does not always determine water allocation in these states because the Secretary of the Interior can allocate water without worrying about senior and junior appropriators. Arizona v California (1963).   For example, the secretary of the interior has the power to allocate and regulate water for the purpose of conserving water and wildlife. 43 Code of Federal Regulations § 427.1 Water Conservation (2008).  Such regulations could limit a senior user's water use. Various federal regulations can also have priority over senior users. For example, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 seeks to protect animals at risk of extinction, so a senior user's rights may be restricted in favor of federal regulation protecting the habitats of endangered animals. 16 U.S. Code § 1531 Conservation (1973).

Burglary, also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking, is the act of entering a building or other areas without permission, with the intention of committing a criminal offence. Usually that offence is theft, robbery or murder, but most jurisdictions include others within the ambit of burglary. To commit burglary is to burgle, a term back-formed from the word burglar, or to burglarize. Common-law definition. At common law, burglary was defined by Sir Matthew Hale as: The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not. 1. Breaking can be either actual, such as by forcing open a door, or constructive, such as by fraud or threats. Breaking does not require that anything be "broken" in terms of physical damage occurring. A person who has permission to enter part of a house, but not another part, commits a breaking and entering when they use any means to enter a room where they are not permitted, so long as the room was not open to enter. 2. Entering can involve either physical entry by a person, or the insertion of an instrument to remove property. Insertion of a tool to gain entry may not constitute entering by itself. Note that there must be a breaking and an entering for common-law burglary. Breaking without entry or entry without breaking is not sufficient for common-law burglary. 3. Although rarely listed as an element, the common law required that "entry occur as a consequence of the breaking". For example, if wrongdoers partially open a window with a pry bar—but then notice an open door, which they use to enter the dwelling instead, there is no burglary under common law. The use of the pry bar would not constitute an entry even if a portion of the prybar "entered" the residence. Under the instrumentality rule the use of an instrument to affect a breaking would not constitute an entry. However, if any part of the perpetrator's body entered the residence in an attempt to gain entry, the instrumentality rule did not apply. Thus, if the perpetrators used the pry bar to pry open the window and then used their hands to lift the partially opened window, an "entry" would have taken place when they grasped the bottom of the window with their hands. 4. House includes a temporarily unoccupied dwelling, but not a building used only occasionally as a habitation. 5. Nighttime is defined as hours between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise. 6. Typically, this element is expressed as the intent to commit a felony “therein”. The use of the word “therein” adds nothing and certainly does not limit the scope of burglary to those wrongdoers who break and enter a dwelling intending to commit a felony on the premises. The situs of the felony does not matter, and burglary occurs if the wrongdoers intended to commit a felony at the time they broke and entered. The common-law elements of burglary often vary between jurisdictions. The common-law definition has been expanded in most jurisdictions, such that the building need not be a dwelling or even a building in the conventional sense, physical breaking is not necessary, the entry does not need to occur at night, and the intent may be to commit any felony or theft.

Civil procedure doctrines are rules developed by case law as opposed to being set down in codes or legislation, which, together with court rules and codes, define the steps that a person involved in a civil lawsuit can (or cannot) take. Purpose. In the United States federal jurisdiction, these doctrines have developed to comprehensively deal with certain common issues that arise when a person is involved in bringing, or contemplating bringing a civil lawsuit. Other jurisdictions. Similar doctrines exist In other jurisdictions, (however they are sometimes referred to under names other than 'Doctrines of Civil Procedure'), although often they have much less importance. For example, in England and Wales, all civil procedure is covered by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which according to Part 1 of those rules are a 'new procedural code', and have therefore largely replaced any pre-existing doctrines. Jurisdiction (from Latin juris 'law' + dictio 'declaration') is the legal term for the authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels. Jurisdiction draws its substance from international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of society. International dimension. Generally, international laws and treaties provide agreements which nations agree to be bound to. Such agreements are not always established or maintained. The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by three principles outlined in the UN charter. These are equality of states, territorial sovereignty and non-intervention. This raises the question of when many states can prescribe or enforce jurisdiction. The Lotus case establishes two key rules to the prescription and enforcement of jurisdiction. The case outlines that jurisdiction is territorial and that a state may not exercise its jurisdiction in the territory of another state unless there is a rule that permits this. On that same note, states enjoy a wide measure of discretion to prescribe jurisdiction over persons, property and acts within their own territory unless there was a rule that prohibits this.