司法征收与诉讼过程

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Virginia Law Review Pub Date : 2004-09-01 DOI:10.2307/3202383
W. D. Sarratt
{"title":"司法征收与诉讼过程","authors":"W. D. Sarratt","doi":"10.2307/3202383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ENERALLY, a line in the sand should not be crossed without considering the consequences. In Oregon, like most other states, the mean high tide line along the coast represented such a line, with private property on the upland side and public property toward the sea. In the case of State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, however, the Oregon Supreme Court granted the public the right to cross that line for its enjoyment based on the English common law doctrine of custom, and, as a corollary, prohibited property owners from constructing any improvements on the dry sand beach between the mean high tide line and the vegetation line that might interfere with the public’s right of access. While the Oregon Supreme Court admitted that custom was doctrinally “unprecedented” in Oregon case law, the court looked to William Blackstone’s exposition of that doctrine and found, without any specific factual inquiry, that the entire Oregon coastline met the articulated requirements. Satisfied","PeriodicalId":47840,"journal":{"name":"Virginia Law Review","volume":"90 1","pages":"1487"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3202383","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial Takings and the Course Pursued\",\"authors\":\"W. D. Sarratt\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3202383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ENERALLY, a line in the sand should not be crossed without considering the consequences. In Oregon, like most other states, the mean high tide line along the coast represented such a line, with private property on the upland side and public property toward the sea. In the case of State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, however, the Oregon Supreme Court granted the public the right to cross that line for its enjoyment based on the English common law doctrine of custom, and, as a corollary, prohibited property owners from constructing any improvements on the dry sand beach between the mean high tide line and the vegetation line that might interfere with the public’s right of access. While the Oregon Supreme Court admitted that custom was doctrinally “unprecedented” in Oregon case law, the court looked to William Blackstone’s exposition of that doctrine and found, without any specific factual inquiry, that the entire Oregon coastline met the articulated requirements. Satisfied\",\"PeriodicalId\":47840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"1487\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3202383\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virginia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3202383\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3202383","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

一般来说,不考虑后果就不能越过底线。在俄勒冈州,像大多数其他州一样,沿着海岸的平均涨潮线代表了这样一条线,私人财产在高地一侧,公共财产朝向大海。然而,在“州ex . Thornton v. Hay”一案中,俄勒冈州最高法院根据英国习惯法的习惯原则,授予公众越过这条线享受的权利,并作为必然结果,禁止财产所有者在平均涨潮线和植被线之间的干沙滩上修建任何可能干扰公众进入权利的改进设施。虽然俄勒冈州最高法院承认,在俄勒冈州的判例法中,习惯在理论上是“史无前例的”,但法院参考了威廉·布莱克斯通(William Blackstone)对该原则的阐述,并在没有任何具体事实调查的情况下发现,俄勒冈州的整个海岸线都符合明确的要求。满意
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Judicial Takings and the Course Pursued
ENERALLY, a line in the sand should not be crossed without considering the consequences. In Oregon, like most other states, the mean high tide line along the coast represented such a line, with private property on the upland side and public property toward the sea. In the case of State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, however, the Oregon Supreme Court granted the public the right to cross that line for its enjoyment based on the English common law doctrine of custom, and, as a corollary, prohibited property owners from constructing any improvements on the dry sand beach between the mean high tide line and the vegetation line that might interfere with the public’s right of access. While the Oregon Supreme Court admitted that custom was doctrinally “unprecedented” in Oregon case law, the court looked to William Blackstone’s exposition of that doctrine and found, without any specific factual inquiry, that the entire Oregon coastline met the articulated requirements. Satisfied
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country.
期刊最新文献
The God Cure: Spirituality as Therapy. Designing Business Forms to Pursue Social Goals Isolated Lambdoid Craniosynostosis. Unconstitutionally Illegitimate Discrimination Sovereign Immunity and the Constitutional Text
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1