Prescriptive Rights Research Articles

Location and marking of cadastral boundaries in Nordic countries

Cadastral boundaries are key components for ordering the ownership of real property by dividing it into territories. This study analyses the similarities and differences in marking cadastral boundaries in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. A case study was conducted by examining legislations, ordinances, guidelines, and other instructions. These are issued by both the respective national governments, and associated agencies responsible for real property formation and demarcation of boundaries, such as, the national cadastral authorities. We describe, analyse, and discuss the visual division between properties, boundary marks, natural features used as real property boundaries, the information on boundaries in national registers, prescriptive rights, and the localization of boundaries in each country. The outcome of the study shows that there are many similarities between the four countries, but also differences. As an example, the materials used for demarcation differ between each country. Furthermore, the party performing the cadastral procedures range from governmental officials to licenced private surveyors. Finally, differences were noted in whether a real property boundary following a river or stream when created will change position if the river or stream changes course over time.

Exploring usual care for patients with low back pain in primary care: a cross-sectional study of general practitioners, physiotherapists and chiropractors

ObjectivesTo explore the elements and composition of care provided by general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and chiropractors (DCs) to patients with low back pain (LBP).DesignObservational study.SettingPrimary care setting, Denmark.ParticipantsPrimary care...

Commentaries on health services research

Commentaries on health services research

GRANICE UPRAWNIEŃ KIEROWNICZYCH PRACODAWCY W STOSUNKU PRACY

THE LIMITS OF THE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPSummaryManagement authority, which is guaranteed for the employer under the employment relationship with respect to employees, is an essential (necessary) feature of the employment relationship, which very often determines the identity of this relationship, distinguishing it from other legal forms of employment, especially those of a civil nature. The employing entity’s management authority must first of all be identified with the employer’s powers to influence the employee’s actions within the scope of the performance of work (in the work process) and the employee’s corresponding obligations to the employing entity regarding the work he is to perform. Using these powers, the employer specifies the employee’s obligations for the performance of the job, in particular its type, method, the time and place in which it is to be done, as well as the order and organization of the work process. According to the literature on the subject, the employer’s main powers of management include prescriptive rights (the core of management authority), which allow him to specify the employee’s duties by issuing binding instructions to him; punitive (disciplinary) powers associated with the use of disciplinary penalties; regulatory (legislative) powers, primarily to establish the regulations and other acts determining working order (in particular work schedules, holiday timetables etc.); and distributive power (the allocation of prizes and awards). The object of this study is to characterize the limits to the employer’s management authority in the employment relationship. The author concentrates on the limits defined by applicable law, the employment contract, the clause of compliance with socio-economic purpose, and the rules of social coexistence, as well as custom. The analysis of the limits of the employer’s management authority shows the importance of this issue, both in theoretical and practical terms. The appropriate configuration of these limits may help to solve one of the fundamental problems of modern labor law, which is to harmonize its protective and organizational functions.

Job satisfaction among British physician associates

All British physician associates (PAs) were invited to participate in the annual census of the UK Association of Physician Associates (UKAPA) in May 2014. Each participant completed the Cooper 10-item Job Satisfaction Scale and a PA-specific job satisfaction survey. In general, PAs were found to be satisfied with their work. No factor assessed by the survey had lower than a 66.6% satisfaction rate. Of the factors assessed, PAs were most satisfied with their relationships with the doctors on their teams. They were least satisfied with their ability to use their training and abilities, with only 66.6% of participants reporting satisfaction with this aspect of their work. Like their American colleagues, British PAs are generally satisfied with their work. They are least satisfied with their ability to fully use their training, which is likely due to the youth of the profession, lack of prescriptive rights and lack of understanding of the PA role.

Prescriptive Water Rights in California: An Addendum

other western states, including Utah before and since its interesting 1939 legislation,2 emphasizes the soundness of Mr. Kletzing's conclusions. The issue discussed in most of the western appellate courts is whether the so-called codes, now adopted in some form in every western state, provide an exclusive or only an alternative method for acquiring new water rights by physical diversions of water. On United States lands new water rights are acquired only by appropriation, since according to well-known principles prescriptive rights can never be acquired against the government.3 However, where watercourses traverse private lands, rights may be acquired by prescription in most of the western states. The codes usually provide for filing formal applications, accompanied by maps and engineering data, with some state officer who then holds hearings and grants permits, often on conditions protecting the rights of other water users, present or future. The officer, of course, has the power to deny permits for good cause shown. The majority of the western courts have held that these codes are in the nature of recording acts, giving priority to applicants as of their filing dates regardless of the length of time of use, and are not the exclusive method for acquiring new rights. The continued, open, notorious, exclusive, uninterrupted, and adverse use and enjoyment of the water under a claim of right for the statutory period (in California five years)5 in most western jurisdictions constitutes the perfection of new water rights as of the end of the statutory period. These rights often are not matters of public record and when in question require proof of all the necessary facts to the satisfaction of a court.

People v. Shirokow: Abolishing Prescriptive Water Rights against the State

People v. Shirokow: Abolishing Prescriptive Water Rights against the State

California Court Clarifies Issues Around Prescriptive Surface Water Rights

According to a recent California appellate court decision, lower riparian owners can acquire prescriptive water rights by adverse use, and the acknowledgment of an upper riparian owner's water rights through failed negotiations does not destroy a lower riparian owner's claim to adverse possession. The court addressed two unsettled issues in California water law, including the following: whether prescriptive water rights in surface water may be perfected between private parties; and, whether recognition by an adverse possessor of a record owner's water rights can defeat prescriptive use.

Prescriptive Rights and Responsibilities of the Older Consumer

Prescriptive Rights and Responsibilities of the Older Consumer

People v. Shirokow: Abolishing Prescriptive Water Rights against the State

People v. Shirokow: Abolishing Prescriptive Water Rights against the State

Discussion on O.R. and Company Planning — Methodology and Education

published' the ensuing discussion on Company Planning is recorded here, as going significantly beyond the paper submitted on that subject.2 The aim of the discussion was to identify some trends in O.R. in Company Planning, thus laying out by implication not only some requirements of a future O.R. educational Syllabus, but also some requirements for research and development in methodology, some of which may involve O.R., and some involve other skills human and organizational which were also discussed in the Conference papers.' The first step was to identify a series of likely trends. Two main notes of caution were sounded. First, predicting future trends is a positive, directed exercise, rather than just an extrapolation of the past. Second, O.R. may have an integrative systems approach, but so do many other cognate specialities, such as management consultancy in general, or systems analysis in particular. O.R. is simply at the more numerate and analytic end of a wide spectrum of Management Services and does not necessarily have prescriptive rights in its fields of operation.

II. Executive Monarchy and the Challenge of Parties, 1689–1832: Two Concepts of Government and Two Historiographical Interpretations

Anyone who studies eighteenth-century British politics soon becomes aware of a lack of definite form in the major institutions of government. Contemporaries, although equally aware of this imprecision, did not consider that it detracted from the utility of the constitution. On the contrary the vagaries of the system were often cited as its chief asset, permitting such apparently irreconcilable elements as parliamentary supremacy and a royal executive to exist together in balanced harmony. Burke, the constitution's most eloquent defender, called this quality of comprehensiveness a ‘unity in so great a diversity of its parts’, and believed that such unity was capable of sheltering both prescriptive rights and necessary adaptations in society. But the quality which men of the eighteenth century were agreed to admire has been viewed less sympathetically by later writers, intent on clarifying points which contemporaries preferred to leave open. The whig historians of the nineteenth century attempted to cut through difficulties by treating as unworthy of consideration in the eighteenth-century scene those features which did not survive in the era of reform. The misinterpretations which thereby arose brought about a necessary reaction in the present century, especially from the late Sir Lewis Namier whose research revealed the Georgian scene as having a more traditional structure of politics and society than was previously supposed. But Namier's own work too paid disproportionate attention to parts of the scene at the expense of others, though he undoubtedly did so because the difficulty of dislodging a well-established whig orthodoxy led him to overstate his case.

WATER RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA

ABSTRACTThe paper defines a water right and discusses the origin, description and relationship of riparian rights, appropriative rights, overlying rights, pueblo rights, prescriptive rights and rights to spring water and return flows as recognized in California. It reviews the objectives and physical criteria on which administration of water rights in California is based and describes the administrative body, then outlines the procedures in regard to appropriation of water and determination of existing rights. It discusses watermaster service and water use recordation as practiced in California, and mentions Federal‐State relationships, including the “reservation principle” asserted by the Federal Government. It concludes with observations of the deficiencies in the California system.

Water Rights and Regulation in the Eastern Statesa

AbstractThere are numerous ramifications to consider in discussing water rights and laws. In this discussion meaningful impressions concerning water rights and related laws in the 31 States lying east of Texas and the Dakotas are presented. Research is still in progress and a number of the statements are necessarily tentative.cAlthough legislation of various types has been enacted, court‐made rules still provide the primary basis for the water rights laws of most eastern States. This means rules developed by the reported decisions of the State appellate courts. In Louisiana, however, unlike the common‐law States, the Civil Code provides the primary basis for its laws (see Borton, Mark E. and Ellis, Harold H., “Some Legal Aspects of Water Use in Louisiana,” La. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 537, June, 1960). Bear in mind that these general rules often vary from State to State and that they may be modified by voluntary contractual arrangements, the exercise of eminent domain, prescriptive rights, legislation, and various other complicating factors. Furthermore, the laws of most States are unsettled regarding a number of questions, and several court decisions are of elderly vintage and hence might be modified under current conditions.Water supplies, natural or developed, all may be more or less interrelated. But rights to use them may vary according to their particular designation as classified by the courts for various purposes. Some common classifications of natural water supplies include natural watercourses, diffused surface water, percolating ground water, and underground streams.

The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action

Over the last century and a half, the work of the Constitutional Convention and the motives of the Founding Fathers have been analyzed under a number of different ideological auspices. To one generation of historians, the hand of God was moving in the assembly; under a later dispensation, the dialectic (at various levels of philosophical sophistication) replaced the Deity: “relationships of production” moved into the niche previously reserved for Love of Country. Thus in counterpoint to the Zeitgeist, the Framers have undergone miraculous metamorphoses: at one time acclaimed as liberals and bold social engineers, today they appear in the guise of sound Burkean conservatives, men who in our time would subscribe to Fortune, look to Walter Lippmann for political theory, and chuckle patronizingly at the antics of Barry Goldwater. The implicit assumption is that if James Madison were among us, he would be President of the Ford Foundation, while Alexander Hamilton would chair the Committee for Economic Development.The “Fathers” have thus been admitted to our best circles; the revolutionary ferocity which confiscated all Tory property in reach and populated New Brunswick with outlaws has been converted by the “Miltown School” of American historians into a benign dedication to “consensus” and “prescriptive rights.” The Daughters of the American Revolution have, through the ministrations of Professors Boorstin, Hartz, and Rossiter, at last found ancestors worthy of their descendants. It is not my purpose here to argue that the “Fathers” were, in fact, radical revolutionaries; that proposition has been brilliantly demonstrated by Robert R. Palmer in his Age of the Democratic Revolution.

The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action

Over the last century and a half, the work of the Constitutional Convention and the motives of the Founding Fathers have been analyzed under a number of different ideological auspices. To one generation of historians, the hand of God was moving in the assembly; under a later dispensation, the dialectic (at various levels of philosophical sophistication) replaced the Deity: “relationships of production” moved into the niche previously reserved for Love of Country. Thus in counterpoint to the Zeitgeist, the Framers have undergone miraculous metamorphoses: at one time acclaimed as liberals and bold social engineers, today they appear in the guise of sound Burkean conservatives, men who in our time would subscribe to Fortune, look to Walter Lippmann for political theory, and chuckle patronizingly at the antics of Barry Goldwater. The implicit assumption is that if James Madison were among us, he would be President of the Ford Foundation, while Alexander Hamilton would chair the Committee for Economic Development.The “Fathers” have thus been admitted to our best circles; the revolutionary ferocity which confiscated all Tory property in reach and populated New Brunswick with outlaws has been converted by the “Miltown School” of American historians into a benign dedication to “consensus” and “prescriptive rights.” The Daughters of the American Revolution have, through the ministrations of Professors Boorstin, Hartz, and Rossiter, at last found ancestors worthy of their descendants. It is not my purpose here to argue that the “Fathers” were, in fact, radical revolutionaries; that proposition has been brilliantly demonstrated by Robert R. Palmer in his Age of the Democratic Revolution.

Application of the Doctrine of Intervening Public Use in Water Litigation: Water Rights. Intervening Public Use. Estoppel. Public Policy. Prescriptive Rights

Application of the Doctrine of Intervening Public Use in Water Litigation: Water Rights. Intervening Public Use. Estoppel. Public Policy. Prescriptive Rights

Justice Jesse W. Carter, An American Individualist

WHEN Jesse Washington Carter's name appeared in the newspapers, as it frequently did, he was usually cast in the role of a fighter. When he was a public prosecutor in California's frontier Shasta County and a plaintiff's attorney for outraged northern California farmers battling the inroads of power companies, he won the nickname Wild Ass of the Desert.' As Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, where his dissents were frequent and outspoken, he was called Great Dissenter.' People remembered his militant side as the judge whose stay of execution made it possible for kidnapper Caryl Chessman live on at San Quentin long after he was scheduled die;' who wrote the famous Cahan decision which in effect reinforced the civil liberties of narcotics suspects;' and who late in his life threatened to shoot the first s. o. b. of a county official who interfered with his property. The newspapers, however, did not tell the whole story. Jesse Carter's childhood heritage was one of antislavery Republicanism, frontier individualism, hard work and sparse living, and closeness the soil which gave him a lifelong love of the land and a deep feeling for the prescriptive rights of dirt farmers. His grandfather, who was of English ancestry, was born in Virginia and became a farmer in Kentucky. His father, Asa, ran away from his family of mixed sympathies on the slavery question fight in the Civil War on the Union side. At the end of the war, Asa Carter was assigned a regiment sent out west fight Indians, and when he left the army, he went into hydraulic mining in the mountains of Trinity and Siskiyou counties in California. When he married, he acquired by homestead and purchase 2oo acres of farm land on the Trinity River (across the river from the old Oregon Trail), built

Prescriptive Water Rights in California and the Necessity for a Valid Statutory Appropriation

Prescriptive Water Rights in California and the Necessity for a Valid Statutory Appropriation

Prescriptive Water Rights in California: An Addendum

Prescriptive Water Rights in California: An Addendum