Bifalgorithm post · Property · Would you need to show evidence of harm to sue successfully a

Possession

Possession (Property · Would you need to show evidence of harm to sue successfully a) — "Possession is defined as the intent to possess or control an object to…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Legal framework for possession, ownership, appellate review, and essay evaluation
  • Possession requires intent to possess or control an object together with physical acts manifesting that intent.
  • The physical acts required to establish possession vary with the context.
  • A landowner is generally deemed to intend to possess lost goods located on the land.
  • An intent to control access to the land is sufficient to show an intent to control access to things on the land.
  • The landowner maintains physical control by regulating entry and setting the terms of remaining on the land, even when the land is open to the public.
  • The landowner’s physical control communicates an intent to control all property on the land, including lost property.
  • Locke’s labor theory recognizes a natural right to the fruits of one’s labor.
  • An immoral acquisition negates the moral justification for recognizing ownership based on that acquisition.
  • The clearly erroneous standard applies to factual findings by lower courts.
  • Legal determinations are generally reviewed de novo because appellate courts are not comparatively disadvantaged in deciding what the law is.
  • The essay answer was evaluated according to specific legal-analysis criteria.
  • Discussion of abandonment and the treasure-trove status of the property.
  • A clear definition of possession and an initial setup for the argument.
  • An argument leading to a contextualized definition of possession.
  • Application of the contextualized possession rule to the facts.
  • Discussion of the landowner’s claims based on mere ownership and embedded property.
  • An argument concerning possible different treatment as burial goods.
  • An argument that the landowner would win if the finders were declared trespassers.
Feed/

Possession

Channel

Property

1 page

"Possession is defined as the intent to possess or control an object together with physical actions manifesting that intent. Precisely what acts are required varies with context. A landowner should be deemed to intend to possess all lost goods on his or her property, because most landowners do indeed intend to control the objects on their land—even if they are unaware of the objects’ whereabouts or even existence at any given moment. In any event, an intent to control access to the land is sufficient intent to control access to things on the land. The landowner maintains physical control over the land by controlling entry and setting the terms on which one is allowed to stay on the land. Even if a landowner opens up to the general public, he or she is not required to do this and may revoke consent at any time. The physical control the landowner in this case clearly exerted over the land is sufficient to communicate an intent to control all of the property contained on the land, including lost property.\n\nLocke’s labor theory asserts that one has a natural right to the fruits of one’s labors. This is a matter of justice and flows from the inalienable, god-given right to one’s body and thus one’s labors. The commission of a moral wrong in the course of acquiring an object most directly negatives what would otherwise be the moral justification for recognizing ownership by virtue of the acquisition. That is, if the reason we give laborers the fruits of their labors is because it is morally required, proof that an acquisition was immoral would most clearly negate that reason.\n\nThe clearly erroneous standard is used to review the factual findings of the lower court. The court that actually heard and saw the evidence is, the theory goes, in a better position to evaluate that evidence and reach conclusions about its validity. Courts generally, though not always, review legal determinations of trial courts de novo, without any deference, because appellate courts are at no comparative disadvantage in determining what the law is or should be.\n\nEssay Answer On a recent test, I assigned points for this problem as follows: Discussion of abandonment / treasure trove status of property: 2 Clearly stated definition of possession and set-up to argue: 2 Argument leading to a “contextualized” definition of possession: 3 Application of contextualized possession rule to facts: 2 Discussion of landowner claims to objects based on mere ownership and embedded: 3 Argument concerning possible different treatment as burial goods: 2 Argument that landowner would win if finder(s) declared trespassers: 1"

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.