|
Deward Bowles
Posts: 15
Location: Houston, Harris
Joined: 3/29/2009
|
Article posted at the TSPS.org forum |
Flag »
Reply »
|
Chain!
Occasionally there are court decisions that seem contrary to common sense. Generally one of the ways that I view the quality of a court decision is if the decision tends to spur additional legal actions.
After the US Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London (1), there has been a general movement across the United States to limit eminent domain powers. The backlash that has developed has spilled over well beyond the question of eminent domain.
As a general principle adverse possession, acquiescence, etc., does not operate against a governmental entity. Recently however we have seen some cases coming up across the United States that appear to try and reinterpret this general principle. A Michigan Court of Appeals case, Mason v. City of Menominee (2), is a case where a City park surrounds the plaintiff on three sides. At issue was a 60 foot wide strip on one side of the plaintiff’s land that was deeded to the City for a street. A street was never opened on the strip of land in question and the plaintiff apparently had a portion of their driveway there for more than 15 years (the statutory time period for acquiescence in Michigan).
In a published opinion regarding this case the Michigan Court of Appeals stated…
|
|
| |
Monday, June 22, 2009 at 9:29:04 AM |