Essay on "Tresspas the Court of Appeal"

/>

2. Halperin v. Pitts (2011)).

The intrusion in this case was not of any physical sort, but was in a fact the dispute on the property line which was taken to the next level. The decision of the court made it very clear that trespassing can be in any form, whether physical or not, and even flooding the other's person's property with an ill-willed desire would be counted as intrusion.

The decision also made a clear distinction between the intent of possession that the other party may have in such cases, which needs to be taken into account when property dispute cases are being heard.

3. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)).

The case was filed by Susette Kelo whose private property was being taken up by the City of New London for development, which would have resulted in producing jobs and housing for many people. The area had been much affected by the recent economic upheaval. The decision upon the case was clear and made the argument that since such an act didn't violate any of the state and federal constitutions and it was important to take into consideration the greater good of the entire community.

The decision came under much fire, for the misinterpretation of the property laws and the Fifth Amendment.

4. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343, U.S. 579 (1952)

The case was the result of the seizure of the Nation's steel mills by the Secretary of Commerce, Charles Sawyer, upon the direct directive from the President of the United States, Harry Truman. The action was taken in the light of the emergency that is the Korean War, which had taken grip of the American economy. A nationwide strike of the steel mills would have jeopardized the entire economy and all that is linked to it, and therefore it was important to take such a step. The result was that the case was taken to the courts, however the judgment that was received upon it, has been the subject matter of much debate.

Where an agreement was reached that the President has no power to take such a step, the point raised by Justice Jackson in his judgment has been of crucial importance. The judgment states that the action of the President needs to be judged only after it has been transcribed a category. The categories which he created categorized the action as having been taken by the consent of the Congress, or the Congress having remained silent about the issues or as being defiant of the congressional orders.

Works Cited

Gallin v. Poulou. No. 16602. California . 10th April 1956.

Halperin v. Pitts. No. A139639. Washington County Circuit Court. 19th March… READ MORE