Excuse me? What on earth does legal mean other than specifically being "in compliance with the law"? There is nothing colloquial about it, that's quite literally the formal definition.
>However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on.
This is not true at all. The whole basis for a prescriptive easement rests upon the fact that it wasn't forbidden. If you object to someone's use of your land, then their fence becomes illegal and is indeed forbidden. To acquire an easement, you need to prove that your use was not contentious, ie. specifically demonstrate that your usage did not contravene any prohibition.
> If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on.
I recommend you take a moment to reflect on how obnoxious this is, regardless of if you were correct in the first place.
Moreover, he isn't looking for retribution, but restitution. He just wants his land back.
“prosecution”, but, no, civil law has statutes of limitations, too, in fact crimes without statutes of limitations are more common than civil wrongs without them.
See, e.g., this discussion of California’s civil statutes of limitations: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-civi...
My jurisdiction does, of course, which is why I mentioned it.
> None of this has anything, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited
I disagree, strongly.
I acknowledge that the fence line is now legal, in the colloquial sense meaning "in compliance with the law".
Everyone acknowledges that the fence line was once illegal, in the same colloquial sense.
Yeah, you're right, the ruling in the linked article is different, and governs the creation or removal of actual laws. However, it's similar in spirit in that something that was forbidden, if done for long enough, becomes permitted. If you can't see the analogy, I recommend you just shrug and move on.