This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
I have long held that the origins of a boundary dispute are misunderstood even by the participants. The cause of many disputes may be nothing more than territorial behavior.
Several years ago (more than I want to count), I was putting together a program on liability and limitations on liability and ran across the 1994 Nebraska Supreme Court case of Lawyers Title v. Hoffman Engineers and Surveyors, (“Hoffman”).
This series of columns started with a discussion of basic factors to consider when setting up and operating a deformation monitoring network, including epochs, network adjustment versus deformation analysis, and why we need to think carefully about adjustment procedures.
Surveyors everywhere need to keep their eyes open. In the office or in the field, our job involves a great deal of information acquisition and analysis.
With a few years of stakeout experience, most surveyors have been asked many times to “set a benchmark.” That could be one of the most risky acts for a party chief.
RSS
