scholarly journals The Meaning of “shall not be set up against a third party” in the Article 4 paragraph 3 of Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name - Review on the Supreme Court Decision 2010Da89814 decided March 28, 2013 -

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-225
Author(s):  
Byoung-Ho Jung
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Set Up

scholarly journals Third Party Consent Searches Following the Search and Surveillance Act

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 447
Author(s):  
Sam McMullan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Living Arrangements ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

Many New Zealanders live in shared living arrangements. The result of this is that reasonable expectations of privacy are becoming more limited. State officials may conduct a lawful search where a person consents to such a search if that person has the authority to consent. Where people live in shared living arrangements, several people may have authority to consent to a search of the same property. This article explores the extent of a third party's power to consent to property searches where more than one person has authority to consent to a search under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. It argues that the question of reasonable expectations of privacy should not be assessed by reference to property rights. It also considers the concept of "apparent" authority which has arisen in New Zealand from the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Bradley as well as the concept of a present and objecting occupant which has arisen in the United States in the Supreme Court decision of Georgia v Randolph.

Public Financing after the Supreme Court Decision

1976 ◽  
Vol 425 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
George E. Agree
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Financing ◽  
Public Subsidies ◽  
Private Money ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo assures that large amounts of private money will con tinue to play an important role in political financing in America. By thus altering the environment in which public subsidies were intended to operate, the decision foreshadows that public funding will shift toward the objective of providing financial floors under candidates rather than implementing ceilings over them. The problem of third party candidates, the several methods of allocating public funds, the feasibility of administration and enforcement, and the suitability of the check-off as an appropriation device may all be affected. Yet it seems inevitable that public financing will become a perma nent feature of American political life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document