Indiana trespass law Indiana Code 35-43-2-2 states: (c) A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of: (1) personal communication, oral or written; (2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; (3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32‑30‑6, IC 32‑30‑7, IC 32‑30‑8, IC 36‑7‑9, or IC 36‑7‑36; or (4) posting the property by placing identifying purple marks on trees or posts around the area where entry is denied. Should this be taken to mean that a physical barrier (with out signage) does not deny entry? Also as a second question how does no trespass signage affect delivery people, such as USPS, etc.
Should this be taken to mean that a physical barrier (with out signage) does not deny entry? It seems that a physical barrier alone does not deny entry under subsection (b)(1). This entire section is defining when a person has committed criminal trespass. Apparently breaking through a fence with no sign does not constitute criminal trespass, unless one of the other sub-sections applies. But it may constitute simple trespass, and it may constitute some other offense, such as breaking and entering. Note also that subsection (b)(4) adss a person who: knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent; to the list of those who commit criminal trespass. That might apply to a person who enters by damaging a fence. Also as a second question how does no trespass signage affect delivery people Section 2(g)(6)(B) exempts the owner's: (i) family member; (ii) invitee; (iii) employee; (iv) agent; or (v) independent contractor; I would think that a delivery person would be either an invitee or an independent contractor. Or perhaps some other provision applies. As for nearby provisions in the code, Section 35-43-2-1 defines &quot;Burglary&quot; in terms of breaking and entering with intent to commit theft or felony. Section 35-43-2-1.1.5 defines &quot;residential entry&quot; in terms of breaking and entering a dwelling. Section 35-43-2-1.3 deals with unauthorized computer access.
There is no law against lying in these circumstances. In fact, for a very modest sum, security companies sell dummy CCTV cameras to make this lie more convincing. However, trespass only happens if people have been warned so this works for literate people who speak English and see the sign. That leaves a very large group of people who would not be trespassing even with the sign. A further problem with a sign on the house is that people have no idea how far away they have to get in order to stop trespassing. In addition, legitimate visitors (uninvited or not) are not trespassers. It seems that people are coming onto your property because they are thirsty. A better way to deal with this is go to your local hardware store and replace the tap with a vandal proof tap that has a removable head. Keep that inside and put a sign next to the tap saying "Refrigerated Water $2 - knock on front door".
No it is not legal; it is trespassing. the common law definition of trespassing is to enter someone's land or property without their permission. By locking the door they have denied permission to everyone except those to whom they have given a key. If someone finds a key that happens to fit the lock, there is no longer a physical restriction but as they do not have permission, the legal restriction is still in force.
There doesn't seem to be any indication I could find that your Indiana license would expire or be revoked. That said, that question is likely moot for your purposes per the comment you left. Your Indiana permit is no longer valid in Florida if you have been a Florida resident for 91 days or more. Florida handgun license reciprocity is covered by S 790.015 and applies to non-residents. Individuals who establish residency in Florida and have a license from another state have 90 days to acquire a Florida license (emphasis mine): (3) If the resident of another state who is the holder of a valid license to carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm issued in another state establishes legal residence in this state by: (a) Registering to vote; (b) Making a statement of domicile pursuant to s. 222.17; or (c) Filing for homestead tax exemption on property in this state, the license shall remain in effect for 90 days following the date on which the holder of the license establishes legal state residence
Residents agree that the receipt of mail by any individual not listed as a Resident or Occupant in this Agreement at the Leased Premises shall be proof of occupancy of that individual and a violation of this Agreement. I assume that the lease states that only the listed individuals can reside in the unit. Maybe they think that this says that receipt of mail by an unlisted person is a further violation of the lease, I don't think that is clearly enough stated that the courts would agree that receiving mail is itself a violation of the lease. Instead, it seems to be intended to say something about an existing clause – you can't have other people living there. The courts would look at the requirements of the lease, and ask "did you comply"? The question of whether you did a certain thing is a question of fact that has to be resolved in court. However, the revised lease language does not state that all mail must be addressed to Johnny Johnson – it only addresses receipt by a person not on the lease. You are (apparently) on the lease, so you may receive mail there. Nothing in the lease controls how such mail can be addressed. If you receive mail addressed to Tommy Thompson, your defense is that you received the mail, and you are on the lease, so you will not have violated the new clause.
The primary legal question is whether the resident (tenant) has breached a duty of care. There are all sorts of laws establishing duties of care, such as between doctor and patient, which may be created by a legislature or may be part of common law tradition. There is a duty of care imposed on a landlord w.r.t. the tenant, requiring that the premise be &quot;secure&quot;, therefore a landlord might easily be held liable if the main door into the building was not locked. This duty is a specific instance of a general duty from tradesman/businessman to customer. As far as I can determine, there is no such statutory duty imposed on tenants in Washington state, and none from case law being revealed by a few cursory searches. In order to be subsumed under general &quot;everybody has a duty to everybody else&quot; law, the damage would have to be foreseeable. It is said that &quot;If something is foreseeable, it is a probable and predictable consequence of the defendant’s negligent actions or inaction&quot;. This mean that a reasonable person would have known that, under the circumstances, the damage is likely to result. Circumstances vary quite a bit, and there is no general rule about holding the door open for another person. If there is abundant signage reminding tenants to never ever let in a stranger no matter that their excuse and/or if the premise is in a crime war-zone, the outcome is more likely to be considered to be foreseeable.
This overstates the case. A company must pursue infringements, arguably even when it isn't economically sensible in isolation to do so, to prevent its trademark from being diluted. But, that isn't the case &quot;when it's blatantly obvious that there is no infringement.&quot; There is no benefit from pursuing cases that aren't even colorable infringements. The notion is similar to adverse possession. If you let someone openly use your real property without your permission, eventually, the squatter becomes its legal owner. Also, as in the case of adverse possession, an alternative to suing someone for infringing is to make their permission non-infringing by writing them a letter expressly authorizing them to use your mark. Permissive, licensed use does not dilute a trademark.
It's based on the date the letter was received, not the date it was mailed. Since it's certified, it's not received until somebody signs for it, which starts the clock. The actual date isn't possible to calculate from the information on hand. The delivery receipt would have the date it was signed for, it would be prior to the end of the 30th calendar date from that date. Edit... Your new &quot;twist&quot; results in void service and doesn’t require action by the HOA. Certified mail is a service of the USPS, hand delivering or email does not legally count as &quot;certified mail&quot;. If a contract requires service by a specific method (e.g. certified mail), then delivery by any other means is invalid and of no effect.