Actions on the case for nuisance

Author(s):  
John Baker

This chapter shows how actions on the case were used both to supplant the assize of nuisance and to provide remedies for types of nuisance not within the assize. The King’s Bench allowed case to overlap with the assize, but this was opposed by the Common Pleas until 1601, when the King’s Bench view prevailed. The assize was chiefly concerned with easements and profits. But there were new difficulties over the extent to which neighbours had to put up with disagreeable activities and processes which disturbed their comfort. These were discussed in a case of 1569 concerning ancient lights in London, and in a leading case of 1629 concerning the use of sea-coal by a London brewery. The 1629 case seems to have resulted in judicial deadlock, but the judges agreed on the principle of ‘necessity’, meaning that activities which were desirable in the public interest should be protected.

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk

LEGAL STATUS OF CULTURAL PROPERTY AND WORKS OF ART IN THE PRL Summary The article deals with the legal status of works of art and cultural property in the Polish legislation during communism period. Classifying those objects as private property was considered as a very difficult task, because of their material value and the public interest in saving them for future generations. The strict limitations of individuals property were perceived as unusual and as a result a new sort of property – the private cultural property was distinguished. Moreover, the concepts of the common heritage and res extra commercium could be observed in the light of the PRL ideas. It should be emphasized that the above mentioned theories for improving cultural heritage regulations are the most popular in the nowadays’ international discussion.


2015 ◽  
pp. 1638-1652
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Kitsos ◽  
Aikaterini Yannoukakou

The events of 9/11 along with the bombarding in Madrid and London forced governments to resort to new structures of privacy safeguarding and electronic surveillance under the common denominator of terrorism and transnational crime fighting. Legislation as US PATRIOT Act and EU Data Retention Directive altered fundamentally the collection, processing and sharing methods of personal data, while it granted increased powers to police and law enforcement authorities concerning their jurisdiction in obtaining and processing personal information to an excessive degree. As an aftermath of the resulted opacity and the public outcry, a shift is recorded during the last years towards a more open governance by the implementation of open data and cloud computing practices in order to enhance transparency and accountability from the side of governments, restore the trust between the State and the citizens, and amplify the citizens' participation to the decision-making procedures. However, privacy and personal data protection are major issues in all occasions and, thus, must be safeguarded without sacrificing national security and public interest on one hand, but without crossing the thin line between protection and infringement on the other. Where this delicate balance stands, is the focal point of this paper trying to demonstrate that it is better to be cautious with open practices than hostage of clandestine practices.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (49) ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitai Etzioni

Liberal communitarianism holds that a good society is based on a carefully crafted balance between individual rights and the common good; that both normative elements have the same fundamental standing and neither a priori trumps the other. Societies can lose the good balance either by becoming excessively committed to the common good (e.g. national security) or to individual rights (e.g. privacy). Even societies that have established a careful balance often need to recalibrate it following changes in historical conditions (such as the 2001 attacks on the American homeland) and technological developments (such as the invention of smart cell phones).


2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-578
Author(s):  
Pierre Verge

Group action is inherent to a pluralistic society. In various fields, numerous bodies purport to defend and promote the common interest of their members which is also the raison d'être of the group. How receptive is the judicial system to attempts by such groups to legally defend the common aim ? « Collective actions » are brought to assure the legal protection of a collective value which is not of a general societal nature as is the public interest. However, their purpose is not to defend the subjective patrimonial interest of the members of the group or even of the group itself. The underlying collective interest is first to be objectively identified in order not to unduly curtail the reception of the collective action; then it is for the Court to establish whether there is a sufficient relationship between the collective interest and the general objects of the group, as officially defined, in order to allow the latter to act. This analysis of the « sufficient interest », as required by Sec. 55 C.C.P., it is suggested, appears to be more adapted to the nature of the collective action than the immediate requirement of a « direct and personal » interest from the group, at least if this notion is to be understood as involving some form of patrimonial interest, as in most trials.


1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Douglass

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven W. Kopp ◽  
Mike Landry

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian P. Shapiro ◽  
Michael Naughton

ABSTRACT This paper puts forward a vision that integrates liberal and accounting education to engage students with the idea of vocation and pursuit of the common good through their chosen field of accounting. We adopt a common good definition of the public interest that seeks to advance not only the good of institutions and communities (mutual interests) but also the good of individuals (private interests). This approach engages students to critically reflect on how their life experiences, personal commitments, and future professional work can relate to one another. We first discuss disciplinary fragmentation in higher education and its implications for integrating liberal and accounting education. Next, we describe general learning objectives and concepts that support the integration of liberal learning and accounting education with a public interest orientation. We then apply the approach to critique accounting practices that arguably harm the public interest. The concluding section provides a summary and describes how accounting educators may adapt and scale an approach that fits their institutional setting.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1 (3)) ◽  
pp. 37-46
Author(s):  
Mariusz Krawczyk

The article concerns the issue of common good in the activity of public administration. It is exactly the aspects of this “good” which have a direct influence on the motives behind administrative actions. It turns out that what is “common” can be understood as pertaining to entire society, but also in relation to individual interests. The public administration, although traditionally connected only to the public interest, also implements the good of the individual and this not only indirectly, as it has been noted in the literature of the subject so far, but also independently. Because the common good has its different aspects in the sense that it does not have to mean only values of a strictly general dimension. This may be significant for the definitional purpose to the very administration itself and testifies, at the same time, to the multidimensional nature of contemporary public administration. The considerations are developed with reference to potential relations of public interest and the individual one, in which the most important place is occupied by conflict of these interests.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-30
Author(s):  
Raina Nikolova

The public interest in carrying out enforcement activities in a constitutional sense is to provide guarantees for compliance with the fundamental principles. In order to exercise the fundamental rights of citizens in the performance of their enforcement activities, the common interest can be formulated by imposing restrictions on them.


1983 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-149
Author(s):  
Ian Eagles

The rules governing the exclusion of evidence in the public interest are usually discussed as if they were wholly the creation of the common law. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a submerged statutory underside to Crown privilege, an underside which is no less important for being hitherto largely invisible to the judicial eye. More than 100 Acts and statutory instruments restrict the use which government departments and other public bodies may make of the information they acquire. Each such Act or instrument is a potential barrier to the use of the information in the courtroom. Just why this vast mass of legislation should have remained for so long forensically invisible is not immediately apparent. It is true that most of it was drafted to regulate disclosure outside the courtroom and its evidentiary provisions are often tucked away in obscure subsections whose import may be unclear to those administering the Acts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document