Trust Rights Research Articles

Public (Trust) Rights in Open Space: Day v Shropshire Council

In Day v Shropshire Council (Day), the Supreme Court considered the effect of a statutory trust under section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 on a subsequent purchaser. Finding for the claimant, a local resident resisting development, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the local authority's failure to give notice and consider objections under the Local Government Act 1972 meant that the site's transfer into private ownership did not extinguish public trust rights to open space, binding the disponee. This note suggests that the decision in Day is to be welcomed, providing clarity on long‐established legislative provisions that protect open spaces, even when sites are not identified as such in planning processes. The note applauds the clarity of the Supreme Court's resistance to drawing on the law of trusts when interpreting statutory provisions and commends the ease with which the Supreme Court confirmed the co‐existence of public and private rights in land. The note also considers how Day illustrates the nature of local authority land ownership, a live issue at the boundary between land and administrative law, of particular interest at a time when local authorities are disposing of surplus open spaces for development.

EXISTENCE OF WITNESSES IN MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO HADIST PERSPECTIVE

A marriage contract is analogous to a sale and purchase agreement, then women are free or have the right to make a marriage contract, as women are free and have the right to enter into a contract of sale and purchase. Thus, women have the free right to make a marriage contract because there is no legal difference between contracts. In a marriage contract, although guardians have rights, they are not absolute. Guardians can only exercise their absolute trust rights if there is an error made by the woman in doing so or marrying an unequal male. It is said so because of the mistake of women in making a marriage contract, will also cause disgrace on his guardian in the future.

Juliana, et al v. United States, et al

In June of 2015, a group of twenty-one youth plaintiffs, ranging in age from 8 to 19, initiated a suit in the United States District Court of Oregon, against the United States government in Juliana, et al v. United States, et al. The plaintiffs allege that the federal government knowingly “[…] permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, [...] deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric CO2 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history.” Further, the plaintiffs allege that as a result of these actions, the federal government has destabilized the climate system, “significantly endanger[ing the] plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia.” The plaintiffs base their claims on substantive due process grounds, arguing that the government’s actions have and will continue to deprive them life, liberty, and property, and that government has violated its obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek: 1) a declaration that their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated; and 2) an order enjoining the defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. In response to the plaintiffs’ claims, the defendant federal government and a group of intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Oral argument on the motion was held and in April 2016, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Finding and Recommendation (“F&R”) in which he recommended the District Court deny the motion to dismiss. The defendants and intervenors filed objections in response to Judge Coffin’s F&R. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the objections were reviewed by District Judge Ann Aiken. On November 10, 2016, after reviewing the objections of the defendants, Judge Aiken issued an Opinion and Order adopting Judge Coffin’s F&R and denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. A brief discussion of Judge Aiken’s opinion and her reasoning for denying the motion to dismiss is found in turn.

Blueprint for the Great Lakes Trail

The Great Lakes are vast yet vulnerable. There is a need to focus the public’s attention on the significance of the lakes for the region as a cohesive, bi-national whole. To address this need, build on existing water law, and engage the public, this article provides a blueprint to establish a Great Lakes Trail on the shores of the Great Lakes. The trail will link together 10,000 miles of coastline and provide the longest marked walking trail in the world. It will demarcate an already existing, yet largely unrecognized, public trust easement and engage the public with their common heritage in the lakeshore. The Great Lakes Trail is rooted in longstanding legal rights in the beach commons that have been forgotten and eroded over time. The trail provides a tangible way to restore the public’s coastal history and reinvigorate public trust rights.In the United States, when each of the Great Lakes states entered the Union, the federal government transferred to them the waters and lake beds of the Great Lakes up to the Ordinary High Water Mark on the beach. The states were to hold these lands and waters in trust for the public use and enjoyment. In 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court held in favor of the public’s right to access and walk along this beach. This is the only Great Lakes state court decision to directly address the public’s right to walk along the Great Lakes, and it provides an excellent contemporary model decision for the region. On the Canadian side of the Great Lakes there is an existing movement to build a Waterfront Trail along all of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, as well as legislative efforts to recognize a right of passage on foot along the Great Lakes shoreline. However, the states and provinces lack consistency in how they address public access to this coast, and have not identified it as a broad public asset like the Appalachian Trail. Establishing the Great Lakes Trail will be a monumental effort, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. It will require generating local, and especially lakeshore property owners’ support for the trail; developing a system of local volunteers; working with artists and educators to design art installations and signs that reflect each community’s values and educate the public about Great Lakes ecological and legal issues; building local tourism economies with chambers of commerce to promote trailoriented businesses; and partnering with GIS mappers and App developers to produce real time local business information and mapping. Ultimately, getting people to utilize their public trust rights in walking the coasts of the Great Lakes engages them in actively seeing the importance of the Great Lakes as an ecological, political, economic, and cultural asset, which is a precursor to developing and implementing cooperative Great Lakes governance structures.

Blueprint for the Great Lakes Trail

The Great Lakes are vast yet vulnerable. There is a need to focus the public’s attention on the significance of the lakes for the region as a cohesive, binational whole. To address this need, build on existing water law, and engage the public, this Article provides a blueprint to establish a Great Lakes Trail on the shores of the Great Lakes. The Trail will link together 10,000 miles of coastline and provide the longest marked walking trail in the world. It will demarcate an already existing, yet largely unrecognized, public trust easement and engage the public with their common heritage in the lakeshore. The Great Lakes Trail is rooted in longstanding legal rights in the beach commons that have been forgotten and eroded over time. The Trail will provide a tangible way to restore the public’s coastal history and reinvigorate public trust rights. In the United States, when each of the Great Lakes states entered the Union, the federal government transferred to them the waters and lakebeds of the Great Lakes up to the ordinary high water mark on the beach. The states were to hold these lands and waters in trust for the public use and enjoyment. In 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court held in favor of the public’s right to access and walk along this beach. This is the only Great Lakes state court decision to directly address the public’s right to walk along the Great Lakes, and it provides an excellent contemporary model decision for the region. On the Canadian side of the Great Lakes, there is an existing movement to build a Waterfront Trail along all of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, as well as legislative efforts to recognize a right of passage on foot along the Great Lakes shoreline. However, the states and provinces lack consistency in how they address public access to this coast, and have not identified it as a broad public asset like the Appalachian Trail. Establishing the Great Lakes Trail will be a monumental effort, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. It will require generating local, and especially lakeshore property owners’ support for the Trail; developing a system of local volunteers; working with artists and educators to design art installations and signs that reflect each community’s values and educate the public about Great Lakes ecological and legal issues; building local tourism economies with chambers of commerce to promote trail-oriented businesses; and partnering with GIS mappers and app developers to produce real time local business information and mapping. Ultimately, allowing people to utilize their public trust rights in walking the coasts of the Great Lakes actively engages them in seeing the importance of the Great Lakes as an ecological, political, economic, and cultural asset, which is a precursor to developing and implementing cooperative Great Lakes governance structures.

The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?

The principle of the child's right to an open future was first proposed by the legal philosopher Joel Feinberg and developed further by bioethicist Dena Davis. The principle holds that...