Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mülkiyet hakkı, tarih boyunca vazgeçilmez bir insan hakkı olarak karşımıza çıksa da diǧer temel haklar gibi sınırlanması mümkün kılınmıştır. Devlet ve kamu tüzel kişilerinin kamu hizmetlerini yürütürken ortaya çıkan taşınmaz ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak gayesiyle başvurduǧu kamulaştırma işlemi de mülkiyet hakkına getirilen en önemli sınırlamaların başında gelmektedir. Kamulaştırma işlemi ile mülkiyet hakkı sahibi taşınmaz malikinin mülkiyet hakkı ortadan kaldırılmaktadır. Kamulaştırma her ne kadar idari işlem olarak karşımıza çıksa da sonuçlarını özel mülkiyete tabi taşınmazlar üzerinde doǧurmaktadır. Ayrıca kamulaştırma işleminin idari yönü olduǧu gibi adli yönü de mevcuttur. Çalışmamızda en temel ve vazgeçilmez insan haklarından biri olan mülkiyet hakkı tanımı, kapsamı ve içeriǧine deǧinildikten sonra bu hakkın sınırlaması niteliǧinde olan kamulaştırma işlemi için uyulması gereken esas ve usullere deǧinilmiştir. Amaç: Temel bir insan hakkı olan mülkiyet hakkının kamulaştırma yoluyla hukuka uygun bir şekilde sınırlanmasında uyulması gereken esas ve usulleri incelemektedir. Yöntem: Literatür araştırması yöntemine dayanan bu çalışma, veritabanlan ve yazılı kaynakların taraması yapılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Mülkiyet hakkı en temel insan haklarından biri olması nedeniyle bu hakkın sınırlanması süreci de mevzuat çerçevesinde sıkı kurallara tabi kılınmıştır. Özgünlük: Bu çalışmanın özgün yanı, mülkiyet hakkına müdahale sonucu doǧuran kamulaştırma işlemine ilişkin düzenlemelerin, yeni mevzuat ve güncel yargı kararları ele alınarak incelenmesidir.

BackgroundSo far compatibilities between two proprietary medicines have been tested in the lab.A plethora of publications exists and contradictory results are inevitable.Uncertainties remain if a specific compound has not yet been tested.PurposeTo present a model imaging the mechanism (s) to achieve stable mixtures of two proprietary medicines in NaCl 0.9%, administered by y-site.Including all ingredients.To assess a physicochemical background defined by a minimum of criteria.To guarantee traceability of the results using publicly accessible data.To enable predictionsMaterial and methodsPhysicochemical data were retrieved from databases: Drugbank, ChemSpider, oddb.org and swissmedicinfo.chTrissel and KingGuide were used as authorities of compatibility samples.A pilot study creating a decision tree (DTREG software) revealed the factors influencing compatibilities: pH ranges of drug solutions (pHr), polar surface areas (PSA), solvent accessible surface areas (SASA), log P, pKa values, molecular polarisability (mPOL) and inorganic ions.ResultsSupervising these results prompted us to look at any characteristics of polarities: ionic bonds, (induced) dipoles, H bonds determining water structures.Standing out were the pH ranges of the drug solutions and the potential polarisation of the apolar area of the active substance (pPol):Compatible mixtures exhibit pH and mPol ranges consistent with the water structure indicated by inorganic ions and supplemental ingredients.So far we analysed around 200 mixtures of two proprietary medicines. All results are in agreement with the literature.ConclusionThe proposed model allows us to discriminate compatible iv admixtures for small drug molecules. The process is straightforward and most of the data required are publicly accessible.An internet platform will be published in the near future containing pPol values of the commonly used active ingredients.The validity of the present model is restricted by the calculus used to estimate the values of the molecular surfaces and their polarisabilities. Molecular weights are limited to about 3000 Da.References and/or AcknowledgementsFor references see materials sectionMany thanks to the colleagues who provided critical arguments and/or ambiguous compatibility results.No conflict of interest.

The study addresses the tense convergence of proprietary notions that small and medium farmers held in litigation to access land. The Guacarhue Valley, an agricultural space in the central area of Chile, which, since 1820, underwent tension due to the formalization of land rights, was chosen as the observation scenario. A case study, found that the actors, arguing in response to access interests about this real state, made it possible to find dissimilar proprietary notions. On the one hand, it arose on the basis that the property had in residences experiences, settlement and work, as a legacy of the jurisdictional culture of the colonial period.

This study exploits the staggered adoption of the inevitable disclosure doctrine (IDD) by U.S. state courts as an exogenous shock that generates variations in the proprietary costs of disclosure. We find that firms respond to IDD adoption by reducing the level of disclosure regarding their customers' identities, supporting the proprietary cost hypothesis. Our results are stronger for firms in industries with a higher degree of entry threats, for firms in more volatile industries, and for firms with a lower degree of external financing dependence. Overall, this study represents one of the first efforts in identifying the causal effect of proprietary costs of disclosure on the supply of disclosure.

C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the court is to resolve questions of ownership - including beneficial ownership - before it determines each party's net family property and calculates the equalization payment.3 This would suggest that, where a party is claiming a remedial constructive trust, the court is to determine the claim for unjust enrichment (and the appropriate remedy, if any) before determining the claim for equalization. (b) However, the Court of Appeal has also stressed that, in the vast majority of cases, any unjust enrichment that arises as a result of a marriage will be fully addressed through the operation of the equalization provisions under the Family Law Act, including under s. 5(6) of the Act, which allows the court to award a party an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties.4 (c) We suggest that the court cannot consider claims for unjust enrichment and equalization in separate silos, and must consider the interplay between the two claims, including whether the equalization payment obviates the need for the court to make an additional monetary or proprietary award to address the unjust enrichment. Given the Court of Appeal's decisions in McNamee, Martin and Li, referred to above, cases where the court finds the need to make a monetary or proprietary award to address unjust enrichment arising from the marriage should be the exception, rather than the rule. 2. What Limitation Period Applies to the Claim for Unjust Enrichment? (a) A claim for unjust enrichment in which the claimant is seeking a remedial constructive trust in a real property is subject to the ten-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.15.5 Where the claimant is seeking a monetary award in the alternative to a remedial constructive trust in real property, the same ten-year limitation period applies.6 (i) Note that, if the claimant has been/is in possession of the real property, s. 5(1) of the Real Property Limitations Act postpones the commencement of the limitation period to the time of dispossession or discontinuance.7 (b) A claim for unjust enrichment in which the claimant is only seeking a monetary award or an interest in something other than a real property is subject to the two-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. В. If \"NO\", unjust enrichment has been established, proceed to Question 2 below. (i) The court may take into account the reasonable expectations of the parties and moral and public policy considerations about whether particular enrichments are unjust, notably in a domestic family law situation.18 (ii) The provision of domestic services can support a claim for unjust enrichment.19 A spouse or domestic partner generally has no duty, at common law, equity, or by statute, to perform work or services for the other.