Slashdot Mirror

Your random unattributed internet reference is incorrect. Even where some cities incorrectly try to call possessing a right-of-way "owning" the sidewalk to people, in a legal sense, the property still belongs to the property owner. If you look at the actual recorded deeds and maps in the recorders office, it's very easy to see the distinction. Some cities explain the distinction between owning the property and owning a right-of-way to a portion of the property very well, others fairly well, and some cities not so well, indicating whoever wrote their stuff doesn't actually understand it. For example, Champaign's web site talks about "owning" the right-of-way "property", then a couple of paragraphs later about the responsibilities of the "property owner" in that right-of-way, not meaning them. :)

The closer you get to an actual legal authority and real city or county recorders who deal with property descriptions, plat maps, easements and right-of-ways, the more you find people who actually understand the difference between the owner of the property and what a public right-of-way legally is. What it isn't is ownership of the property itself, it's the right to use the property for a specific purpose. So under various circumstances the property owner can recover the right-of-way from a city, profit from mining oil or minerals underneath it, etc... Pretty standard for a city street, the center of the right-of-way is the actual property line between property owners (they each own half the road) and the right-of-way extends 30 ft. in either direction.

If you ask a random city employee, you may be told the city "owns" the sidewalk, but if you ask a non-profit which exists to give cities and counties legal advice, you're likely to get a much more accurate answer, including legal citations. Let's not even talk about clickbait web sites who exist to get searchers to land on random "articles" like reference.com.

So yes, "It's better to check when you don't know what you're talking about." Wish more city website writers would check a little more thoroughly, but then, that's what lawyers are for, right? To be legally pedantic. ;)

Your random unattributed internet reference is incorrect. Even where some cities incorrectly try to call possessing a right-of-way "owning" the sidewalk to people, in a legal sense, the property still belongs to the property owner. If you look at the actual recorded deeds and maps in the recorders office, it's very easy to see the distinction. Some cities explain the distinction between owning the property and owning a right-of-way to a portion of the property very well, others fairly well, and some cities not so well, indicating whoever wrote their stuff doesn't actually understand it. For example, Champaign's web site talks about "owning" the right-of-way "property", then a couple of paragraphs later about the responsibilities of the "property owner" in that right-of-way, not meaning them. :)

The closer you get to an actual legal authority and real city or county recorders who deal with property descriptions, plat maps, easements and right-of-ways, the more you find people who actually understand the difference between the owner of the property and what a public right-of-way legally is. What it isn't is ownership of the property itself, it's the right to use the property for a specific purpose. So under various circumstances the property owner can recover the right-of-way from a city, profit from mining oil or minerals underneath it, etc... Pretty standard for a city street, the center of the right-of-way is the actual property line between property owners (they each own half the road) and the right-of-way extends 30 ft. in either direction.

If you ask a random city employee, you may be told the city "owns" the sidewalk, but if you ask a non-profit which exists to give cities and counties legal advice, you're likely to get a much more accurate answer, including legal citations. Let's not even talk about clickbait web sites who exist to get searchers to land on random "articles" like reference.com.

So yes, "It's better to check when you don't know what you're talking about." Wish more city website writers would check a little more thoroughly, but then, that's what lawyers are for, right? To be legally pedantic. ;)

A City of a State is subjective to the State. If they State law states that Drones are okay, then the City must allow them. The Cities are supposed to be represented in the State just as the States are subjective to the US Government.

What you say may be technically true, but on the ground in day to day business, local law enforcement pretty much carries the load, and state and federal law enforcement act strictly as support, unless they are called in by local authorities, or ordered in by the Governor.
You do not generally see a city swarmed by US Marshals doing day to day law enforcement tasks. Turf is quite rigorously defended.

You might have DEA running around with Drones, but seldom unknown to local police, and usually only if there is inter-state aspect.

Just because state laws say drones are ok, doesn't mean they are going to be "ok" in any City.
It depends on the subject area under discussion. Home Rule cities have wide authority in policing in many states.

See some references on this subject:
http://legisource.net/2011/11/03/when-can-a-local-government-override-state-law-home-rule-cities-in-colorado/
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/governance/locgov12.aspx#3

How does this ruling and the Washington State Supreme Court's 2003 ruling requiring a warrant affect each other?

If Time Warner ensures that all news sites not owned by Time Warner download at 10 b/s, Time Warner is not in any way liable for restricting users' rights to look at different news sources.

Actually the local government agency that granted Time Warner the cable franchise can do pretty much whatever kind of regulation they want to do, as per the franchise agreement. (Here is an example agreement).

Interesting, though, that your theoretical has never actually happened, since if it did plenty of subscribers would get upset and go to DSL or FiOS or uVerse.

Alright, having just written a legal brief on the subject, I'll explain the legal rationale behind these rulings so that we can actually have an intelligent debate on this subject.

The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, only applies when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item or information searched or seized.

Here, the information about the person's location is what is being "seized." Thus, the way the debate is framed centers around the question: Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location?

I was interested in why the Washington State Supreme Court decided the police need a warrant for GPS tracking. Their rationale might prove enlightening. Here's the decision. The key points are:

• Advances in technology do not mean a person's expectation of privacy is diminished.
• Police can look at private residences from a lawful vantage point, or by using flashlights and binoculars, but not using more intrusive devices such as thermal imagers. When the GPS device tracks a car onto private property, that isn't the same as a policeman using binocs. GPS is an intrusive technology because of the amount of data you can collect about a person.
• How the police obtain information is relevant. While the police can't look into a private residence using advanced technology, that does not necessarily mean that, if you are on public property, the police can track you using advanced technology. That is, using this stuff to look at private property is sufficient but not necessary for privacy infringement.
• If the police don't need a warrant, then that means you don't need to be a suspect for police to bug your car. That's a trespass on innocent peoples' privacy rights.

This court has the ultimate authority to determine the meaning and purpose of a statute. ... Our paramount duty in statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature's intent. ... We avoid a literal reading of a statute if it would result in unlikely, absurd, or strained consequences. ... "The spirit or purpose of an enactment should prevail over the express but inept wording."

Luckily, where I live (Washington state), we have laws to help with this:

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2046%20%20TITLE/ RCW%20%2046%20.%2071%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2046%20.% 2071%20.021.htm

Basically, if I request the parts at the time I authorize their replacement, the mechanic must either provide them to me, or show them to me if the parts are required for coverage under waranty. All of the garages I've used have shown me the parts without a request to do so.

Yes. But just as society has come to understand that a "software pirate" is not a guy with an eye-patch and a parrot on the shoulder with a treasure of stolen MS Windows boxes

You missed bwalling's point. He already knows the common definition of ISP, what he was asking about is the legal definition. They are often quite different things.

This is known as the technical term rule. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 689-90. A term is technical if its legal definition differs from the common understanding of the word. Brown, 132 Wn.2d at 611.

I found at least one example quickly that begs to differ. Take a look at this tasty morsel found therein:

"[6] Larceny - Pawnbrokers - Conversion of Chattel - Good Faith Acquisition - Effect. In a prosecution of a pawnbroker for failure to restore a chattel to its true owner after an unauthorized pawn, it is immaterial that the pawnbroker obtained the chattel under a claim of title made in good faith."

Elsewhere, you'll find that good faith acquisition is a mitigating factor in the seriousness of the conversion, but it does not obviate the obligation to return the stolen property.

Here's another little bit I found on FindLaw:

Conversion
The tort of conversion is similar to the tort of trespass to chattel. Both require a defendant to interfere with another's right of possession in personal property. Likewise, a defendant must have intended to exercise control over the property in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights. It is not required that the defendant know that the property belonged to another. However, for conversion, the interference must be so serious, in terms of duration and extensiveness of use, that it warrants that the defendant pay the personal property's full value.

In other words, either you give it back in good shape in a reasonable period of time, or you pay the rightful owner for it. So, I guess in one sense, you're right--you don't need to give it back. You are liable to pay for it, though, to the rightful owner. What you paid to the thief that sold it to you is immaterial.

In Redmond, WA, and elsewhere I assume, your business license fee is calculated on full time employee hours. Contractors hours are counted as hours towards the contracting company, not Microsoft.

Here is the Redmond Municipal Code for Business License Fees.

If you have a business with 15,000 employees you are paying over $1,000,000 US to license your business in Redmond, WA:

(1) Base fee: $12.50 per full-time employee (or $0.0065 per employee hour worked).
15,000 x 12.5 = 188,000
(2) Surcharge: $55.00 per full-time employee (or $0.0286 per employee hour worked).
15,000 x 55 = 825,000
188,000 + 825,000 = 1,010,000.

Would you do it if you were CEO?

I think Verio has a case that Herr Gilmore's server is a nuisance. By definition a nuisance is ".... is something that annoys -- a wearing on the nerves by a persistent unpleasantness. It can evoke anger and interfere with comfort and peace of mind." A server used to spread virii and SPAM would certainly meet that definition.

In several legal texts I see the following when reffering to nuisances and grounds for legal action
Nuisance
attractive nuisance
forseeability of danger
negligence
liability

I would think that this server can be shown to fit almost all of the above terms. Does anyone know if civil suits can be used to help stop SPAM? Is there a lawyer willing to take up the cause?

. Can /.er's find a fit for this example? Is it a good option?

Christ. If I have to repost one more thing today... the link is here

I did some searching, and google is not giving me any relevant results on the permits being the same, however, I did find this interesting piece about curfew laws being ruled unconstitutional...especially this line.

If this nexus between crime, juveniles, the streets, and potential juvenile curfew hours cannot be established or linked sufficiently, any juvenile curfew ordinance is likely to face the "same fate as the City of Bellingham's. (Which was declared unconstitutional)

The piece can be found here.

"Whether waiting time is time worked under the Act depends upon particular circumstances. The determination involves ``scrutiny and construction of the agreements between particular parties, appraisal of their practical construction of the working agreement by conduct, consideration of the nature of the service, and its relation to the waiting time, and all of the circumstances."

Periods during which an employee is completely relieved from duty and which are long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes are not hours worked. He is not completely relieved from duty and cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes unless he is definitely told in advance that he may leave the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified hour has arrived. Whether the time is long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The general rule seems to be whether or not the employee is free to do as he pleases, or is restricted - tied to a phone, for instance - while waiting for the call.

There's an overview at http://www.mrsc.org/legal/flsa/nutsbolt.htm#E9E2