Black Letter Law Flashcards
What is the rule of capture?
“to deprive of natural liberty into bring under certain control” -
certain control, it’s not going to get away from you, mortal wounding but these things are less than full possession.
Pierson V. Post- case of first impression is pursuit enough for ownership or must ownership require possession? no! first in time in conflict with economic labor theory
Elements of the California Common Law “right to Publicity” White v. Samsung (created property)
- D uses P’s identity- it didn’t need to be an exact likeness, it just needed to immediately jumped to people’s minds it oh this is Vanna White
- Appropriation of P’s name or likeness to D’s advantage
- Lack of consent
- Injury- they made money without paying V white
pre-possessory interest
where if you start your capture, but that captures interrupted by illegal activivity some type,
you have some rights in your bundle, but not all of the rights in your bundle. (and we do not know what rights)
Popov v. Hayashi
unites capture and finders (popov was abandoned property)
qualified right to possession
Property is lost (page 175)
IN2P
when the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with it
Property is mislaid (page 175)
VKUF
when the owner Voluntarily and knowingly places it somewhere, but then unintentionally Forgets it.
property is abandoned (page 175)
KRR
when the owner knowingly relinquishes all right, title, and interest to it.
The essential Elements of a valid “inter vivos” gift are?
- Donative intent- the donor must intend to make an immediate transfer of property
- Delivery-The property must be delivered to the donee. So that the donor parts with dominion and control
- Acceptance- the donee must accept he property- although acceptance of a valuable item is usually presumed.
White v. Samsung Dissent,
how does Kaczynski see the relationship between public and private property.
- we are giving too broad protection with the common law California right to publicity. We can stifle creativity becaue people will be afraid to be sued.
- it was Wheel of fortune that should have sued Samsung.
Right to exclude (Broad Rule)
We have an absolute right to exclude others from our property.
The right to exclude is paramount.
Right to exclude Exception
RULE: • Property rights serve human values. Whenever you see the right to exclude understand the right to exclude is limited by human values, human dignity.
b. MA Spite fence law (sundowner v. king)
(1. ) A fence or other structure in the nature of a fence which
(2) unnecessarily exceeds six feet in height and is
(3) maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the
(4) owners or occupants of adjoining property…. (4 ELEMENTS)
why do we make BLL broad
- you don’t want to constrain the law because as soon as you constrain the law and say, “it must literally be a fence.” You are going to have somebody who comes up with something slightly different. -
Finders
a finder’s property interest gives him priority over everyone except the rightful owner.
Elements of a private nuisance claim
- Action must be intentional.
- It must be non-trespassory - it means that whatever action is taking place. It’s happening in the defendants own yard their own space.
- it has to be unreasonable. - The unreasonableness is the most contentious elements of private nuisance. (this is a balancing test-see private nuissance of smokehouse, CA BAR section 3)
- substantial interference - whatever is happening in the defendants property must create a substantial interference to the plaintiff.
- Must affect the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs land: - it cannot simply be that it exists. And it bothers you, it must affect the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs of land.
rule of capture part II
modified for commercial use
1- location of capture matters if it’s private property. It belongs to. Who owns the private property if it’s public property or unclaimed property or Commons
2- type of chattel. Wild animals, trained, domestic, or animals with a habit of returning
3- Custom and practice (v. Rich, whaling)
Popov v. Hayashi
who owns the ball. If the person is the person catching it is illigally stopped from doing so by other people leave (interrupted first possession). applying rule of capture to non living chattel- 1. Distinguish the baseball from the fox (Pierson). Think of where, when, how, why and type - inanimate object. It’s not going to run away, no brain - the baseball has abandoned property for the foxes on own property.
Popov v. Hayashi- what is the interest called that popov had in the ball. THIS CASE BRIDGES FINDERS AND CAPTURE
Pre-possessory interest -one actor undertake significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has legally cognizable level prepossessing interest in that property.\ NOTE: pre possessory interest governance capture cases where there is illegal interference.