Generally, the local government does not need your consent to demolish a condemned property. It derives its power from statutory laws that address public health. As long as the city followed the requirements set forth in the law, it can demolish the building, clean up the property and place a lien on the property in the land records for the cost of the demolition. You would be required to pay that cost when you sell the property or try to finance a new construction.
Not if the laptop belongs to someone else. If it is company property then it's down to company policy.
No.
in a way
A home owner's association -- as a legal entity -- is a property owner with the same rights as other property owners in the locale. It can cut down trees on land owned by the condominium. It cannot cut down trees on a privately owned lot, which would be land owned by someone else, without the written consent of that landowner.
Not without the buyer's consent if a contract was already formed
Nope... you can trim the branches that overhang your property - but you cannot fell the tree without permission as it's not on your property.
Most cities will not remove a tree unless it is on city property. If the tree is a danger or if it is dying the city will cut it down only if it is on property owned by the city. At times, if branches of a tree are overhanging into the street, the city will trim them up. Trees on private property are mainly the property owners responsibilty and the city will not pay to have the trees removed. Even if your neighbor has a dead tree in his yard that threats your property, the city is not responsible. Trees healthy or sick are the homeowner, or property owner's responsibilty. I am sure states may vary, but this is usually the norm.
Napster was shut down once it was found guilty of allowing users to down music illegally without the consent of the music artists. Napster has since been shut down and no longer exists.
Pretty much nowhere in the US. Offhand I can't think of any state that allows those under the age of 18 to marry without parental consent, with two notable exceptions: In some states minors are allowed to marry despite not having parental consent if the female half of the couple is pregnant, and in some states a judge is allowed to give consent in lieu of parental consent (though in practice this tends to boil down to essentially the same thing, as a judge is unlikely to override parental authority without an extremely compelling reason, such as pregnancy).
This would be called implied consent. It is contrasted with the legally required informed consent.
when property values go down
Yes there is he has to have a written consent from you to even touch the fence you both share. Take them to court you will win.