DOCSLIB.ORG

“Water Rights and Takings: Inherent Limits on the Property Right and Current Developments in the Law” Presented by P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Water Rights and Takings: Inherent Limits on the Property Right and Current Developments in the Law” Presented by P Water Rights and Takings P. Fritz Holleman, Esg. “Water Rights and Takings: Inherent Limits on the Property Right and Current Developments in the Law” presented by P. Fritz Holleman, Esq. Porzak, Browning & Bushong Boulder, CO Defining the property interest — “do plaintiffs possess a property interest and, ifso, what is the proper scope ofthat interest?” Tiage v. (inited States, 42 Fed. Cl. 249, 250 (1998). I. DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF SURFACE WATER ALLOCATION. A. Prior Appropriation. Where: Western United States. Nine “pure” prior appropriation states in the Mountain West and Alaska. Basic Rule: Premise of this system of water allocation is that in a time of shortage “first in time is first in right,” i.e. when there is not enough water for everyone, “senior water rights” (those initiated earlier in time) will get their full allotment before “junior water rights” (established later in time) can take any water. Rights protected via a “call” — “A call is placed on a river when a senior appropriator forces upstream juniors to let sufficient water flow to meet the requirements of the senior priority.” 1151 Properties East, inc. v. Simpson, 938 P.2d 168, 171 n. 2 (Cob. 1997). Geographic relationship to water source is immaterial. State law often allows private right of condemnation to convey water from source to place of use. History: Originates in the customs of hardrock miners on the federal public land in California who recognized a better right in those that made earlier uses of water. Later adopted to regulate water allocation among agricultural users in the developing West. Doctrine incorporated into many state constitutions at statehood. Administration: Most states have a state permitting agency, with a right to appeal any administrative decision to state district court. The “Colorado System” uses special water courts. Appeal from Colorado water courts is straight to the Colorado Supreme Court. B. Riparian Doctrine. Where: Eastern United States. Basic Rule: Each landowner bordering a waterway has a right of reasonable use, and may not unreasonably interfere with reasonable uses made by other riparian landowners. In a time of shortage, all users must reduce use proportionately. Rights protected under tort/nuisance concepts. CLE INTERNATIONAL a PAGE H-I. EMINENT DOMAIN Water Rights and Takings P. Fritz Holleman, Esq. Ilistory: Llements of the doctrine are apparent in both the English Common Law and French Civil Law. Administration: Generally subject to state permitting authority. C. Hybrid Systems. Where: California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Midwest. llislory: Started as riparian states, shifted to prior appropriation while still recognizing riparian rights and concepts to varying degrees. Note that legislation limiting riparian rights in effort to switch to prior appropriation led to water rights takings suits in many states. See, e.g., In re Adjudication ofthe Water Rights of the L~pperGuadalupe Segment ofthe Guadalupe River Basin, 642 S.W.2d 438 (Tex. l982); Belle Fourche Irrigation Dist. v. Smiley, 176 N.W.2d 239 (S.D. 1970); los/in v. Mavin Municipal Water District, 429 P.2d 889 (Cal. 1967); Williams v. City of Wichita, 374 P.2d 578 (Kan. 1962); Bau,nann v. Smrha, 145 F. Supp. 617 (D. Kan. 1956); State cx re Emery v. Knapp, 207 P.2d 440 (Kan. 1949); C’al~fornia-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland C’ement (‘o., 73 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1934); In re Hood River, 227 P. 1065 (Or. 1924). D. Federal Overlay. 1. Federal and Indian reserved water rights. Implied reservation of enough water to serve primary purposes of any federal land reservation — recognized to varying degrees on Indian Reservations, national parks, wilderness areas, military bases, etc. Many such claims remain unquantified. See e.g., Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908); Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963); UnitedStates v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978). 2. McCarran Amendment. Waives sovereign immunity and authorizes joinder of the United States in State judicial and administrative adjudication of water rights. 43 U.S.C. § 666. 3. Navigation servitude. Federal power over commerce and navigation may trump state based water rights without payment ofjust compensation. See Trelease, Federal State Relations in Water Law 175, National Water Comm’n Legal Study No.5(1971). E. Contract Water Rights. Contracts for the use of water from projects developed by Federal or State agencies. Individual water users’ rights generally governed by express terms of the contract, but subject to the terms, conditions and implied limits of the underlying state law based water right for the project generally held in the name of the state or federal agency that developed the particular project. There has been substantial dispute and a significant body of case law on whether better title to the underlying state based water right rests with the United States or with the landowners/irrigators making beneficial use of federal project water. See e.g., Kiamath Irrigation District v. United States, 67 Fed.Ct. 504 (2005)(discussing and distinguishing competing lines of cases on the basis of the differences in contract language and state law). CLE INTERNATIONAL a PAGE H-2 a EMINENT DOMAIN Water Rights and Takings P. Fritz Holleman, Esq. F. Groundwater. Unique animal. Sometimes subject to same rules as surface use, often the subject of particular statutes allocating use depending on such things as overlying land ownership and aquifer characteristics. Colorado was a leader in “conjunctive management” - - recognizing hydrologic interconnection of ground and surface water. Other states still wrestling with how to integrate groundwater and surface use. II. PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES MAKE THE PROPERTY MORE DIFFICULT TO DEFINE. Takings law is complicated enough when applied in the land context — it becomes even more difficult when applied to a property interest in water. See, e.g., Tim/are Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl, 313, 319 (2001)(takings analysis applied to water rights presents “an admittedly unusual situation”). A. Hydrologic Variability. Variable hydrograph during the course of every year. Significant difference between wet, dry and average years. Many streams in the arid Western United States are overappropriated, and in the late summer and fall, junior rights are often shut down. In a dry year, many junior rights may never be in priority. • In Central Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Simpson, 877 P.2d 335 (Cob. 1994), the Colorado Supreme Court denied a taking claim at least in part because the alleged injury to junior rights caused by new legislation was too uncertain in light of the variable flows on the South Platte River. The “intermittent” nature of any potential injury to junior rights from the legislation did “not constitute a substantial diminution of the economic value of the affected rights.” Id. at 347. B. Shared, Flowing Resource. Use and reuse are the rule. Each physical molecule of water in the South Platte is used up to seven times before the water reaches the Nebraska line. Most rights satisfied to some degree by return flows from various upstream uses. Return flow rates vary depending on the type of use and can be as high as 97% for winter time municipal use (i.e., 3% consumption for in-house uses) and as low as 20% for some highly consumptive agricultural uses (i.e., 80% consumption). A key component of the value of any water right is its historic consumptive use. C. Imprecise Measuring and Accounting. “Many of the early Colorado decrees awarded rates of flow in excess of the amounts necessary for the petitioner’s beneficial use, and some even went so far as to grant more water than a particular ditch would carry.” Farmers, 975 P.2d at 198 (Cob. 1999). This is judicial recognition of the well known fact that there are many “paper water rights” in the West —judicial decrees and agency permits describing much more water than has been or even can be used forthe purported purposes. III. ATTRIBUTES AND INHERENT LIMITS OF A WATER RIGHT IN A PRIOR APPROPRIATION STATE. Application of the Lucas background principles. The Government can avoid paying compensation if regulation imposes limitations that “inhere in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership.” Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1029 (1992). In other words, “[w]here the State seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use, . it may resist compensation only ifthe logically antecedent inquiry into the nature of the owner’s estate shows that the proscribed use interests CLE INTERNATIONAL a PAGE H-3 a EMINENT DOMAIN Water Rights and Takings P. Fritz Holleman, Esg. were not part of his title to begin with.” Id. at 1027. l~heproperty interest in water in a prior appropriation state is subject to many significant “inherent limits” that must be considered in any takings analysis. Depending on the jurisdiction, the attributes of a water right set forth below may or may not be a “background principle” of state water law potentially asserted by the Government to diminish or defeat any claim for a taking. A. Definition ofa Water Right Justice Hobbs in Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners Association V. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 53 (Cob. 1999): The property right we recognize as a Colorado water right is a right to use beneficially a specified amount of water, from the available supply of surface water or tributary groundwater, that can be captured, possessed, and controlled in priority under a decree, to the exclusion of all others not then in priority under a decreed water right. B. Creation of Water Right: Three general requirements for creating a vested property right in a prior appropriation state: (I) intent to make an appropriation; (2) diversion or control of the water claimed; and (3) appropriation of the water to beneficial use.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Right-Of-Way
    HD-1301 Chapter RIGHT-OF-WAY Subject General Information GENERAL: The procurement of right of way to widths that accommodate the construction, adequate drainage, and proper maintenance of the highway is a very important part of the overall project. Adequate right-of-way widths permit the construction of gentle slopes, resulting in more safety for the motorist and allowing easier and more economical maintenance. Traffic requirements, topography, environmental issues, utilities, land use, costs, intersection design, and extent of ultimate expansion influence the width of right of way for the complete development of a roadway. RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: Right of way should be of sufficient width to accommodate construction and the continued maintenance and operation of the facility. Avoiding right-angle breaks in the right-of-way line and irregularities in widths facilitates maintenance operations and fencing and optimizes land use. Consider the use of curb-and-gutter sections in urbanized areas for the reduction of right-of-way widths and compatibility with adjacent development. The use of right of way, permanent easements, and temporary easements should be determined on a site-specific basis in order to facilitate the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility and adjacent land use. Typically, permanent right of way should be acquired to the back edge of the berm on curb-and-gutter projects with easements used for that portion beyond the right of way for construction, operation, and maintenance of drainage structures. EASEMENTS: It is common practice to use two types of easements on proposed highway projects: temporary and permanent. Temporary Easement—A temporary easement is the use of a tract of land for a specified time duration (typically the duration of construction), with the land reverting to the owner’s exclusive use at the end of the period.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 State of Utah Uniform Fine Schedule
    2021 UNIFORM FINE SCHEDULE INTENT It is the intent of the Uniform Fine Schedule to assist the sentencing judge in determining the appropriate fine to be imposed as a condition of the sentence in a particular case and to minimize disparity in sentencing for similar offenses and offenders. This schedule is not intended to supplant or to minimize a court’s authority to impose a just sentence. APPLICABILITY These guidelines shall apply to all courts of record and not of record whenever a criminal fine may be imposed. In determining whether a fine is appropriate to impose as a condition of the sentence for a public offense, a judge should consider several factors, including aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances set forth in the Sentencing And Release Guidelines, Tab 6, the cumulative effect of probation conditions, and the ability of the defendant to pay. The amounts listed in the Uniform Fine Schedule may be used as a starting point for setting monetary bail as a condition of pretrial release, however, an individual’s ability to pay must be considered consistent with Appendix J of the Code of Judicial Administration. In those parking, traffic, and infraction cases where the defendant is not required to appear and is mailed a citation indicating the fine amount, pursuant to Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 4-701, the amount may be increased $50 if the defendant fails to appear or to pay within fourteen days after receiving the citation. The amount may be increased by an additional $75 if the defendant fails to appear or to pay within forty days after receiving the citation.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement & Legal Elements Necessary for Prosecution
    Partnership to Combat Critical Infrastructure Copper Theft Webinar Law Enforcement & Legal Elements Necessary for Prosecution February 28, 2012 Roxann M. Ryan, J.D., Ph.D. Iowa Department of Public Safety Division of Intelligence & Fusion Center The theft of copper and other precious metals is hardly new,1 although the targets have changed over time. As copper prices have reached all-time highs, burglars and thieves are accessing new sources of metal. The criminal charges available also have changed over time. In 2011, the Iowa legislature amended two statutes to specifically address the potential risk to public-utility critical infrastructure. What began as House File 299 during the 2011 Iowa legislative session became law on July 1, 2011. That legislation consisted of two primary initiatives: (1) Local ordinances are authorized.2 Municipalities and counties can pass ordinances to require salvage dealers to maintain complete records of their supplies. Failure to comply can result in a suspension or revocation of the salvage dealer’s permit or license. (2) Penalties are increased for trespass on public utility property.3 It is a class “D” felony to trespass on public utility property, which carries a sentence of up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $7500. The options for criminal charges include far more than these two additions. Copper thieves typically commit one or more of the following crimes: Burglary 713.6A. Burglary in the third degree 1. All burglary which is not burglary in the first degree or burglary in the The elements of Burglary are as second degree is burglary in the third degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum
    Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum Spring, 1998 8 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 209 ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND LEGAL TOOLS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR CONSERVATION Ian Bowles, * David Downes, ** Dana Clark, *** and Marianne Guerin-McManus **** * Vice President and Director of Policy Department, Conservation International. ** Senior Attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. *** Senior Attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. **** Director of Conservation Finance Program, Conservation International. SUMMARY: ... At the same time, public concern about environmental issues like clean drinking water, overconsumption of natural resources, and worldwide loss of tropical forests has grown explosively and led policymakers to devote more attention to these issues. ... In most jurisdictions, a conservation easement is created when the landowner transfers some or all rights to develop the property to a government agency or qualified conservation non-governmental organization (NGO); the landowner can maintain certain uses but cannot legally take actions inconsistent with the terms of the conservation easement. ... To encourage donations of conservation easements, a number of jurisdictions specifically provide that a conservation easement qualifies as a charitable contribution, enabling a landowner to deduct its value from her taxable income. ... This provision has proven to be a significant incentive for conservation of biodiversity. ... One method for capturing at least some of the many costs of timber extraction is a user fee. ... Recreation, though not as destructive as extractive resource development, has environmental consequences. ... When a landowner donates a conservation easement, or enters into a conservation agreement, ensure that the landowner's property is taxed at a rate according to its current market value (its value subject to the easement or the agreement), rather than its potential development value.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley Working Papers
    UC Berkeley Working Papers Title Locality and custom : non-aboriginal claims to customary usufructuary rights as a source of rural protest Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9jf7737p Author Fortmann, Louise Publication Date 1988 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California % LOCALITY AND CUSTOM: NON-ABORIGINAL CLAIMS TO CUSTOMARY USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS AS A SOURCE OF RURAL PROTEST Louise Fortmann Department of Forestry and Resource Management University of California at Berkeley !mmUTE OF STUDIES'l NOV 1 1988 Of Working Paper 88-27 INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY LOCALITY AND CUSTOM: NON-ABORIGINAL CLAIMS TO CUSTOMARY USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS AS A SOURCE OF RURAL PROTEST Louise Fortmann Department of Forestry and Resource Management University of California at Berkeley Working Paper 88-27 November 1988 Institute of Governmental Studies Berkeley, CA 94720 Working Papers published by the Institute of Governmental Studies provide quick dissemination of draft reports and papers, preliminary analyses, and papers with a limited audience. The objective is to assist authors in refining their ideas by circulating research results ana to stimulate discussion about puolic policy. Working Papers are reproduced unedited directly from the author's pages. LOCALITY AND CUSTOM: NON-ABORIGINAL CLAIMS TO CUSTOMARY USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS AS A SOURCE OF RURAL PROTESTi Louise Fortmann Department of Forestry and Resource Management University of California at Berkeley Between 1983 and 1986, Adamsville, a small mountain community surrounded by national forest, was the site of three protests. In the first, the Woodcutters' Rebellion, local residents protested the imposition of a fee for cutting firewood on national forest land.
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Way Manual
    Right of Way Manual Office of Land Management Updated 07/26/2018 General Index 100 Pre-Acquisition 200 Appraisals 300 Acquisition 400 Relocation Assistance Program 500 Property Management 800 Special Procedures Table of Contents 100 Pre-Acquisition ...................................................................................................................................1 101 Initial Program Development Process ........................................................................................................1 101.1 Background .........................................................................................................................................1 101.2 Policy ...................................................................................................................................................1 101.3 Procedures ..........................................................................................................................................1 102 Project Numbers and Right of Way State Project Numbers .......................................................................3 102.1 Policy ...................................................................................................................................................3 102.2 Procedure ...........................................................................................................................................3 103 Base Maps...................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Deed of Right-Of-Way Easement
    PREPARED BY: ______________________ PLANNING BOARD FILE# ______________________ DEED OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made on this__________ day of_______________, 20_______by ___________________________________________________ whose mailing address is ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), and THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"). The words “Grantor” and “Grantee” shall mean all Grantors and all Grantees listed above. THIS EASEMENT is granted by Grantor to Grantee for and in consideration of One ($1.00) Dollar, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Grantor also acknowledges that the conveyance of this right-of-way easement is a condition of site plan/subdivision approval by the Middlesex County Planning Board (File Number___________) for the development of Block No. ___________, Lot No.___________ as delineated on the prevailing tax map of the ___________ of ___________. THE LANDS AFFECTED by this Easement (the “Affected Lands”) are more formally described on Exhibit "A" (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) prepared by______________________, New Jersey License No. __________________. Said Affected Lands is also depicted on a Site Plan/Subdivision Plan dated ___________________________ (last revised ______________________), as prepared by______________________, New Jersey License No. _____________________, attached hereto as Exhibit "B". SAID AFFECTED LANDS are a part of the lands and premises conveyed unto Grantor by deed from ____________________, dated ____________________ and recorded in the Middlesex County Clerk's Office on _____________ at Deed Book _________, Page ________. THIS DEED OF EASEMENT conveys to Grantee the right to utilize the easement area in perpetuity for the widening or improving of _______________ Road (County Road No.
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Way Manual, Section 4.1, Land Title
    Topic 575-000-000 Right of Way Manual Effective Date: April 15, 1999 Acquisition Revised: May 18, 2017 Section 7.15 LAND TITLE PURPOSE ............................................................................................................... 7.15.1 AUTHORITY ........................................................................................................... 7.15.1 SCOPE .................................................................................................................... 7.15.1 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 7.15.1 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 7.15.1 7.15.1 QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF TITLE .............................................. 7.15.3 7.15.2 TITLE EVIDENCE ............................................................................. 7.15.4 7.15.3 TITLE SEARCH REPORTS .............................................................. 7.15.4 7.15.4 TITLE INSURANCE .......................................................................... 7.15.7 7.15.5 OPINION OF TITLE .......................................................................... 7.15.8 7.15.6 TITLE EXAMINATION ...................................................................... 7.15.8 7.15.7 PARCEL NUMBERS......................................................................... 7.15.8 7.15.8 FEE TITLE .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Guidelines for Wildlife Fencing and Associated Escape and Lateral Access Control Measures
    CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES FOR WILDLIFE FENCING AND ASSOCIATED ESCAPE AND LATERAL ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment Prepared by: Marcel P. Huijser, Angela V. Kociolek, Tiffany D.H. Allen, Patrick McGowen Western Transportation Institute – Montana State University PO Box 174250 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 Patricia C. Cramer 264 E 100 North, Logan, Utah 84321 Marie Venner Lakewood, CO 80232 April 2015 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 84, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. Wildlife Fencing and Associated Measures Disclaimer DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER STATEMENT The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25 Task 84. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25-25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Fsh 2409.18 – Timber Sale Preparation Handbook
    2409.18_80 Page 1 of 37 FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC FSH 2409.18 – TIMBER SALE PREPARATION HANDBOOK CHAPTER 80 – USES OF TIMBER OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL TIMBER SALES SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS - FOREST BOTANICAL PRODUCTS Amendment No.: 2409.18-2017-1 Effective Date: January 3, 2017 Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. Approved: GLENN P. CASAMASSA Date Approved: 12/28/2016 Associate Deputy Chief, NFS Posting Instructions: Amendments are numbered consecutively by Handbook number and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last amendment to this Handbook was 2409.18-2016-1 to chapter 80. New Document 2409.18_80 37 Pages Superseded Document(s) by 2409.18_80 37 Pages Issuance Number and (Amendment 2409.18-2016-1, 10/26/2016) Effective Date Digest: 82.5 - Revises references to 36 CFR 223.15 throughout the section. 82.53 - Removes reference to the interim directive, at paragraph 4. WO AMENDMENT 2409.18-2017-1 2409.18_80 EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/03/2017 Page 2 of 37 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2409.18 - TIMBER SALE PREPARATION HANDBOOK CHAPTER 80 - USES OF TIMBER OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL TIMBER SALES SPECIAL FOREST PRODUCTS - FOREST BOTANICAL PRODUCTS Table of Contents 80.1 - Authority ........................................................................................................................... 4 81 - DISASTER RELIEF
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Use Real Property for Building Purposes Is of Funda- Sentation Required Under Law
    Polish Construction Review – Issue No. 1 (106) Friday, 8 January 2010 lation establishes the right to use real proper- ty for building purposes under the Law, but only such property rights and such contrac- tual relations which explicitly encompass ri- ghts to perform building works. This, if a title of ownership held by an investor does not en- compass the right to perform building works, Right to use real property for it should be presumed that the investor does not have the right to use the real property for building purposes building purposes and the investor cannot in compliance with law submit such the repre- The issue of the right to use real property for building purposes is of funda- sentation required under law. Meanwhile, if mental importance from the perspective of the building process as well as the the investor nevertheless submits such a re- broader concept of the investment process. Despite the gravity of the insti- presentation, he exposes himself to penal lia- bility and the possibility of the reopening of tution on the boarder of civil law and administrative law, Construction Law of proceedings for the issuance of building per- 7 July 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Law”) regulates it to an exceptional- mit and, as a consequence, the annulment ly limited extent, dedicating to it a definition in the dictionary contained in the of the permit. Law and referring to the discussed institution in providing guidance on regula- Thus, for the investor to be able to submit tions relevant to other concepts. a representation in compliance with law, on the right to use real property for building purposes, the following two prerequisites In line with Art.
    [Show full text]
  • CREATING an AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY and ITS LIMITS in AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest
    CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest Contact Information: Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-4470 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: ∗Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A., J.D., Ph.D. Yale University. I would like to thank James McMasters of Northwestern’s Law Library for his help in finding copies of many of the primary sources used to write this Article. For extremely valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Bernard Bailyn, Stuart Banner, Kenworthey Bilz, Charlotte Crane, David Dana, Michele Landis Dauber, Christine Desan, Tony A. Freyer, Morton J. Horwitz, Daniel Hulsebosch, Stanley N. Katz, Daniel M. Klerman, Naomi Lamoreaux, Charles W. McCurdy, Edmund S. Morgan, Janice Nadler, Sarah Pearsall, Dylan Penningroth, George L. Priest, Richard J. Ross, Emma Rothschild, Dhananjai Shivakumar, Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Vicky Saker Woeste, Gavin Wright and the seminar participants at Northwestern University School of Law’s Faculty Workshop, Stanford Law School’s Faculty Workshop, UCLA’s Legal History Colloquium and Economic History Workshop, NYU’s Legal History Colloquium, the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Chicago Legal History Seminar, the American Society for Legal History’s Annual Meeting, the University of Illinois College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Omohundro Institute of Early American History’s Annual Conference, and Harvard University’s Conference on Atlantic Legalities. The Julius Rosenthal Fund at Northwestern University School of Law provided generous research support. CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY This Article analyzes an issue central to the economic and political development of the early United States: laws protecting real property from the claims of creditors.
    [Show full text]