Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Property > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc (WI, 1997)

A

Intentional Trespass by a company delivering a home. They were told not to cross the land and they did it anyway. No actual damages

Ct said nominal damages could support punitive damages

Concepts— damages, right to exclude

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Baker v. Howard County Hunt (MD 1936)

A

Trespass- fox hunting dogs going on the farm and injuring the person on the farm. Told to stop. Happened again

Ct said right of hunter subordinate to right of owner, liable for behavior of dogs because they had been warned by the letter. Injunction was proper

Concepts- right to exclude, right to quiet enjoyment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Pile v. Pedrick

A

Defendants inadvertently built a factory wall too close to the property line. Foundations protruded into the neighbors’ property by 1.5 in.

Court said have to remove wall so that it is not outside the property line at all. Injunction

Concepts- encroachment, right to exclude (heaven’s and depths), link to adverse possession?

Possible counter arguments- economic efficiency would be paying for use of the extra 1.5 in or selling it, forced license- got to sell got to pay instead?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Coombs v. Lenox Realty Co (ME 1913)

A

Defendant erected a four story brick apartment building, wall bulged out over the property line

Court said impractical for mistaken innocently placed building to be torn down

Concepts— encroachment

Converse arguments- right to exclude

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Edwards v. Sims (KY 1929)

A

Great Onyx Cave, guy explores cave and builds the hotel and stuff, cave goes underneath property line onto other properties.

Ct allows survey to see if cave goes on other property some sort of joint ownership if so.

Concepts- right to exclude, heavens and depths, toil, joint ownership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Orwell v. Nye & Nissen (WA 1946)

A

Egg washing machine ownership dispute. Plaintiff waived tort of conversion (remedy is replevin) and sued for restitution on unjust enrichment.

Ct said could recover the profit derived from use of the machine, but trial court number was too big

Concepts— conversion, replevin, unjust enrichment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Somerville v. Jacob’s (WV 1969)

A

Somerville’s thought a warehouse was built on their lot, but it wasn’t. Jacob’s claimed ownership of building. Somerville brought suit.

Ct: improver of land owned by another is entitled to recover the value of the improvements from the landowner and to a lien upon such a property which may be sold to enforce the payment of such lien or to purchase the land beneath the improvement, if the improvement was made by a reasonable mistake in good faith (forced exchange). Disfavor destruction of building because it is wasteful and impractical

Concepts— unjust enrichment

Other arguments here- right to exclude

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Producers Lumber and Supply Co. v. Olney Building Co (TX 1960)

A

Olney built house on Producers property, figured out it was on Producers property and destroyed it. Producers seeks to obtain value of building that was destroyed

Ct says Producers can recover because disfavor self help

Dissent says: unjust enrichment to get building/value of building for free

Concepts- self help, right to exclude, encroachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Armory v. Delmire (England 1722)

A

Chimney sweep found a jewel, took it to a goldsmith, goldsmith tries to keep the jewel— say that didn’t know where it was or how much it is worth

Ct says finder has the right to keep it against all but rightful owner. Since jewel was missing the jewel is worth as much as a jewel of the same size of the highest quality

Concepts- lost property, against all but true owner, presumption of finest water

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Goodard v. Winchell (Iowa 1892)

A

Meteorite crashed into farmland. Guy comes and gets the meteorite

Ct: meteorite belongs to the owner of the land not the person that found it. Because functionally a meteorite is basically the ground

Concepts: heavens and depths, toil, finders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hannah v. Peel (England 1945)

A

Hannah found a brooch in a military requisitioned house, tried to find appropriate owner and could not,

court held that Hannah had the right to the brooch

Concepts- finders before all else, good faith,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Pierson v. Post (England 1805)

A

Guy prevents man from killing a fox

Merely chasing a fox or a wild animal does not give a person any claim to possession over it, need fully captured or killed or constitute possession in law

Concepts- prepossesory?, pursuit, fast fish loose fish, rule of capture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ghen v. Rich (MA 1881)

A

Whale case, kill whale affix tag, washes up on beach, beach owner sells whale

Ct- “the iron holds the whale,” killing the whale was capture, so the whale was the fisherman’s, look to culture and custom (want to reward toil)

Concepts- loose fish fast fish, capture, toil

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Keeble v. Hickeringill (England 1707)

A

Duck decoy case, purposefully scare ducks in pond away ‘

English ct says this is the pond owners because they made the ducks want to come to the pond and because land ownership is prior possessors of wild animals on their land

Concept- prepossesory interest, capture

Opposite argument- ducks were alive so they were not yet fast

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Popov v. Hayashi

A

Guy catches home run ball, mob violence ensues, guy who wasn’t in the fight comes up with ball’

Ct says both get half the ball, auction it and proceeds split between them (forced exchange?)

Concepts— finders, joint ownership, forced exchange

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Barnard v. Monongahela Natural Gas Co. (PA, 1907)

A

Early in natural resources law, can you draw oil from radius that would reach someone else’s property

Ct says- put your wells where ever you want on your property because encourages industry— neighbor can go and do likewise; analogizes to oil as a wild animal that can find a way out of the property

Concepts: capture, lessening heavens and depths

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Ellif v. Texon Drilling Co. (Tex 1948)

A

Drilled well near property line, negligently installed, causes blowout of well owned by other person because across the property line

Ct says: can’t build negligently and cause damages, can build, award damages for lost well

Concepts- correlative rights, capture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Lone Star Gas Co. v. Murchison (Tex 1962)

A

Lone Star was storing gas at a reservoir, Murchison took gas from reservoir. Action for conversion (damages or replevin)

Ct found for plaintiff, injecting gas back into ground didn’t get rid of their claim to it, first toiler has right

Concepts- toil and capture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Sipriano v. Great Spring Waters of America, Inc. (Tex 1999)

A

Sipriano sued Great Spring Waters of America for taking too much water from water table, meaning Sipriano well couldn’t reach the water. 90,000 a day seven days a week

Ct says rule of capture applies to groundwater the same way it applies to oil and gas. Also says this is for the legislature, but if they don’t do it we might have to.

Concept- capture, but maybe not endlessly, not yet correlative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Stratton v. Mt. Hermon Boys School (MA 1913)

A

Plaintiff sued for wrongful diversion of stream, Mt Harmon boys school was getting water from stream and taking it to a different property

Ct: proprietor may use reasonable amount of water (not significantly diminishing other water) for a reasonable use anywhere in the watershed; jury verdict for damages upheld because this was unreasonable amount and actual damages because mill didn’t work

Concepts- riparian, full correlative right here, everyone gets to access the stream, (no capture), actual damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Coffin v. The Left Hand Ditch Company (CO 1882)

A

Portion of dam torn out and interfered with appellants use of water downstream

Ct: don’t apply riparian, without statutes, first appropriator of water from a natural stream has prior right (not including native peoples)

Concepts- prior appropriation

Opposing arguments- stagnation, prevents competition and industry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

In Re Guadalupe (Tex 1982)

A

Texas Statute established a prior appropriation system in Texas, people got upset because they viewed this as taking away their right to reasonable use riparian water use.

After notice this isn’t taking because it’s wasteful to not use the streams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust (Tex 2008)

A

Fracking case, the particles go across the property line, no actual damages except the natural gas can escape now

Ct says this is still capture go out and do your own fracking; no place for maxim of heavens and depths in the modern world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

The Antelope (U.S. 1825)

A

Ship of enslaved people captured while it was illegal to import enslaved people to US. Some were Portuguese and some where Spanish because two ships were combined after both fell prey to pirates

Portuguese enslaved people are free- no treaty
Spanish enslaved people have to go back to Spain- yes treaty
Burden of proof on the Spanish to prove which of the people on the ship they could enslave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

M’Intosh (1823)

A

Two grants of land from Native Tribes

Title cannot be granted because Native tribes couldn’t convey it in the first place; Europeans claimed ownership of land and let native peoples live on it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Elders v. Ashcroft (U.S. 2013)

A

Copyright Term Extension act (Disney rule) is fine becaus it applies to both existing and future work (no disadvantage for filling copyright before a certain day) brings in line with EU nations

Dissent: extension makes copyright protection nearly perpetual and would stifle innovation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

International News Service v. Associated Press

A

International News would have people read the AP bulletins and report it back without paying for the AP

Ct: this is unfair competition plus misappropriation of the news product; there is a quasi property interest in news because they are both selling it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Lightest and Meyer Tobacco Co. v. Meyer

A

Meyer sent unsolicited ad idea to a company and asked for reasonable compensation if they used it. They ran a different but similar ad a few years later

Ct says no, you had no contract and this isn’t the exact same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

O’Brien v. Pabst Sales Co.

A

Anti-alcohol football player’s pic is used in an alc calendar after getting pic from the university

Ct says right of privacy doesn’t apply because public figure,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Middler v. Ford Motor Co (1998)

A

Bette Middler song that they had the rights to was used in a Ford commercial. Sung by someone that sounded like her.

Ct: Middler’s voice is protected because it is unique and this is an attempt to pirate her identity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Nordgard v. Busher (Or 1960)

A

Adverse possession case: the fence was in the wrong place by mistake (the jog fence tidelands case)

Ct: possession by mistake is still “hostile” or “antagonistic” because using the property like an owner would in an obvious manner

Concepts: Adverse possession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Carpenter v. Ruperto (Iowa 1982)

A

Carpenter used an empty lot next to their property for 30 years and installed part of driveway and propane tank. Ruperto owned the lot.

Ct: need a good faith claim of right or claim of title, Carpenter knew her lot didn’t include that parcel, doesn’t want to give rights to squatters

Concepts: Adverse Possession, claim of right, claim of title

  • good faith is not required in most states
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Howard v. Kunto (Wash 1970)

A

Adverse possession of vacation homes because of land surveyors error, everyone was living on property 50 feet from actual title

Ct: tacking lets us get adverse possession even though there are successive possessors because they possessors were in contract with each other, summer occupancy is still continuous because using it like an owner would

Concepts- adverse possession, continuity of possession, tacking

34
Q

O’Keefe v. Snyder (N.J. 1980)

A

O’Keefe alleges her painting was stolen from Stieglitz’s gallery years ago. Lots of factual conflict. It was well over 10 years ago, but is it limited by SOL because she didn’t discover who had paintings?

Ct: remand because of factual questions, discovery rule— a cause of action will not accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered facts which form the basis of a cause of cation, adverse possession applies to chattels in that the statute of limitations runs out so title has to go somewhere it goes to possessor

Whole bunch of dicta— art world registry, provenance stuff

Concepts- adverse possession, real property v chattels

35
Q

Klamath Falls v. Bell (Or 1971)

A

Corporation conveyed land to Klamath Falls “so long as” the land was used for a library. Then transfer to named parties. Land stopped being used for a library so the city asks whose it is.

Potential RAP problem— fee simple determinable that might not ever vest, so not ok.

Who does the land go to, not the city because respect wishes of person/corporation that conveyed it. So goes back to the corporation. Corporation was dissolved so goes to 2 remaining shareholders

Concepts- estates, RAP, divided ownerships

36
Q

Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscano (Cal 1967)

A

Deed conveyed to a lodge— “said property is restricted for the use and benefit of the [lodge] and in the event that the same fails to be used by the second party, the same is to revert to the first parties, their successors, heirs and assigns”

Ct: this is a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, no alienation issue here

  • i don’t understand this one
37
Q

Foster v. Reiss (N.J. 1955)

A

Woman writes a note before surgery about where she hid lots of property and who she wants it to go to. Her estate split it up differently. Is this a gift causa mortis from Ethel, or do we follow the will?

Ct: must be “actual, unequivocal, and complete delivery [of the gift] during the donor, wholly divesting him of the possessions, dominion and control,” no actual and complete delivery, so the will stands

Dissent: the property was in the house they shared, so that is delivery, but doesn’t love the requirement of delivery

Concepts: wills/estates, gift causa mortis

38
Q

Gruen v. Gruen (N.Y. 1986)

A

Guy gives his son a painting to avoid estate tax, but painting stays at fathers house (life estate to father), series of letters about what the gift actually is for tax/legal purposes

Ct: this is ok, delivery was constructive and acceptance is assumed

Concepts: inter vivos gift

  • evaluated differently that gift causa mortis
39
Q

Gillmor v. Gillmor (Utah 1984)

A

Co-owner cousins; one says she has been obstructed from using the land; asks for share of rent

Ct: this is ouster, each cotenant has full use of land, but can’t keep other cotenants from using the land. Need clear, unequivocal demand to use land that is in the exclusive possession of another cotenant

Concepts: co-ownership, ouster,

40
Q

Harms v. Sprague (Ill. 1984)

A

Joint tenancy with right of survivorship; one of the people takes out a mortgage on his part, promptly dies

Ct: the mortgage did not end the JTWRS, mortgage does not survive the death and it disappears, the people who held mortgage get nothing (court doesn’t apply strict reading of the 4 unities)

Concepts: JTWRoS,

41
Q

Neiman v. Hurff (N.J. 1952)

A

Man kills his wife, wife’s will named a charity as sole beneficiary, can the charity get the real property owned by the decedent and her husband

Ct: murderer cannot acquire right of survivorship, cancer fund is entitled to equity to an absolute one-half interest and a remainder interest in the other half, murderer only gets a life estate (ct assumes that without the murder she would have outlived him) this is an equitable remedy

42
Q

Pardine v. Jane (1647)

A

Early landlord tenants rights case, invading prince of Germany meant guy couldn’t benefit from the land he leased.

Ct: no “implied covenants” tenant still has to pay; only thing promised was “quiet enjoyment” so L has to give possession to T and landlord can’t disturb T (other people not acting with rights derived from the landlord can disturb T)

43
Q

Sutton v. Temple (1843)

A

Rented land to graze cattle, all the land was covered in poisonous paint bits, cows died

Ct: no implied warranty as to condition of realty; only implied warranty that a furnished apartment will come actually furnished

44
Q

Blackett v. Olanoff (MA 1977)

A

Landlord to residences first, then rents to a lounge on the first floor, tenants say this takes away “quiet enjoyment”

Ct: right to quiet enjoyment so this is constructive eviction because landlord could stop renting to the lounge

45
Q

Javins v. First National Realty Corporation (DC 1970)

A

Apartment building had lots of housing code violations, is this constructive eviction?

Ct: yes, warranty of habitability, tenants aren’t paying for the land anymore they are paying for somewhere to live

46
Q

Berg v. Wiley (1978)

A

Rented for resturant, not supposed to be renovations, there were renovations, landlord peeks in window, landlord changes locks

Ct: doesn’t like self help, lockout was non-peaceable so can’t do that, tenant didn’t abandon property

47
Q

Williams v. Ford Motor Credit Company (1982)

A

Repo a car from a woman who comes out and yells but isn’t violent

Ct: overturns jury verdict says the repo was ok, because statute rewards aggressive defense of personal property

48
Q

Sommer v. Kridel (1977)

A

Landlord was told tenant wouldn’t come back, didn’t try to relet

Ct: landlord is under a duty to mitigate damages

Opposing argument— keeping open for tenant, lost volume sales

49
Q

LDS v. Jolley (Utah 1970)

A

LaMar Kay embezzled money from LDS church, got two cars, gave one to his girlfriend. Church tries to get it back

Ct: church gets the cars because Vickie wasn’t actually a purchaser, relaxed tracing because we can follow enough of the funds, constructive trust created in equity

Concepts: bona fide purchaser, tracing

*not sure what this constructive trust thing actually means

50
Q

City of Portland v. Berry (1987)

A

Stole 9 $1,000 bills and 18 $500 bills, took to bank and exchanged for smaller denominations

Berrys brought suit to recover the individual bills that had been stolen (idea that they were no longer printed and becoming collectible)

Ct: this was still legal tender so money rule applies and they can’t recover the bills or the value

51
Q

Bamford v. Turnkey (England 1862)

A

Plaintiff claims neighbor was committing a nuisance by using his land for making bricks

Nuisance exists, its hard to define, this court ordered monetary damages instead of an abatement because making bricks is important

52
Q

Just v. Dairy land Power Cooperative (1970)

A

Farmers near a coal plant, alleged sulphur gases were killing their crops

Ct: Don’t need negligence for nuisance, found nuisance

53
Q

Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Company

A

Plaintiffs lived near feedlot, fumes, swarms of insects, and water pollution

Ct: economic utility in calculating damages/ injunction

54
Q

Oehler v. Levy (1908)

A

Apartment building near a stable as “neighborhood was changing”

Ct: the come to the nuisance defense would typically work, but here the stable cannot continue to operate even as the neighborhood changes

55
Q

Bone boiling case

A

Ct: coming to the nuisance isn’t a defense because the nuisance is so offensive (verges on public nuisance)

56
Q

Powell v. Superior Portland Cement, Inc (1942)

A

Half of town residents depended on cement manufacturing plant for jobs

Ct: the cement dust is a nuisance, but we won’t make them stop or make them pay you because they do so much for our community

57
Q

Rogers v. Elliot (1888)

A

The church bells case

Ct: this is an eggshell plaintiff, nuisance looks at objectively offensive or offensive to the community

58
Q

Amphitheaters v. Portland Meadows (1948)

A

Racehorse track and drive in movie theater built next to each other

Ct: doing of something not in itself noxious does not become a nuisance merely because it impacts a specific industry

59
Q

Christie v. Davey (1893)

A

The music teacher one

Ct: upset because spite, told them to stop being spiteful, music generally isn’t a nuisance

60
Q

Barter v. Bar ringer (1909)

A

Spite fence

Ct: “no one should be compelled by law to submit to a nuisance created and continued for no useful end, but solely to inflict upon him humiliation, as well as physical pain”

61
Q

Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Copper and Iron Co. (1904)

A

D owned copper mines in Ducktown, farms nearby mountains

Ct: no abatement because even though nuisance, balance annoyance to P with utility of D’s actions to community. The mines were important so no injunction, D gets damages

62
Q

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co (1970)

A

Cement plant nuisance

Ct: no injunction have to pay damages, but if stop paying damages then injunction

63
Q

Spur Industries Inc v. Del Webb Development Co (1972)

A

Senior retirement community near feed lot

Ct: no nuisance if only him but subsequent development means changing community; injunction you have to move, but also have to get support from Del Webb to move

64
Q

Schwab v. Timmons (Wisconsin, 1999)

A

Properties with no road access, (lake, bluff and other property, property) request easement by necessity because landlocked.

Ct: no easement because originally had access to public road above the bluff and they sold that off

65
Q

Holbrook v. Taylor (1976)

A

Action to establish easement by prescription

Ct says— no prescription because plaintiffs because a little bit of permission
But there is estoppel because there was some level of permission and the plaintiffs relied on it, court also recognizes there is some necessity here

66
Q

Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings Inc

A

The trucks crossing onto another parcel to turn around

Is there an easement— yes prescriptive easement because open, notorious, continuous use

Does the Dominant estate have to pay?- not for the easement (dissent says this is getting something for nothing), not to keep them from building something on the easement because the easement conveys right to continued use without interference

67
Q

Fountainbleau v. Eden Roc

A

Hotel is building tall building, nearby hotel is upset

Ct says no nuisance because no legal right to air and light (this is called doctrine of ancient lights), sic utere tuo it alienum non lead as (no one has right to use property to injure LAWFUL rights of another) but no lawful right to air and light

68
Q

Brown v. Voss

A

Property A gave express easement to property B for ingress to and egress from B
B was sold to X

X owned B and C which is past B
X tore down home on B and started building on property line between B and C

Ct:
This is a technical violation because the use on C is misuse/extension
But there is no damage, so only get 1$ in nominal for trespass, do not get an injunction to keep them from using C (C does not have easement, but dissent says they can go get condemnation action for being landlocked)

69
Q

Pencader Associates Inc. v. Glasgow Trust

A

There was an easement by necessity, but not used for 170 years

When does easement by necessity end?

Ct says: need:
No longer landlocked OR
No use and abandonment (intentionally relinquished known right- acts inconsistent with right) (estoppel can help find abandonment knows and sits back and waits after servient estate acts to block easement/ property right)

70
Q

Neponsit Property Owners Ass’n v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

A

HOA fees tied to land, covenant said “these covenants shall run with the land, and shall be construed as real covenants running with the land until Jan 31 1940,” covenant intended to maintain streets

Ct says
Have privity, money was being used for public goods that touch and concern land, so covenant is good

71
Q

Tulk v. Moxhay

A

Leinster square sold with condition that it be kept free of buildings so it could be a public space, 40 years later guy try’s to build on it

Ct:
Not a legal covenant because no privity and didn’t run with land
But is an equitable servitude because the party had notice

72
Q

Sanborn v. McLean

A

Wanted to build a gas station in backyard

Ct:
Finds reciprocal negative easement against
“Use so detrimental” to enjoyment of the neighbors, but deed dropped this language

Ct says you know all the houses look the same so there is notice for a covenant

73
Q

Wolff v. Fallon

A

Has land with restrictive covenant to single family home

But area has changed and want to do commercial, and on corner of non residential street

Ct says
Best use of property, the covenant is obsolete as to this property

Dissent
They had a covenant and everyone agreed, the convenient should survive, best use is a dumb argument because most properties are most valuable as commercial property

74
Q

Shelly v. Kramer (1947)

A

SC said can’t prevent people from contracting, but the court can’t enforce a racial covenant under equal protection clause

75
Q

Rhue v. Cheyenne Homes

A

Rhue wanted to move a 30 year old Spanish style house into a new subdivision, which contained only modern ranch style or split level homes. Never got it approved by the architectural board

Ct:
- upheld the covenant even if it wasn’t explicit

76
Q

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village

A

Cat owner wanted to end a covenant because she wasn’t allowed to have cats. No nuisance

Ct:

  • covenant is fine because we can contract for this
  • “legitimate desires of the covenanting parties” (good faith)

Dissent:
- cats and music are the only two things that are good in the world, don’t take them

Legislature:
- said can’t have covenant that keeps you from having “at least one cat”

77
Q

Ambler Realty v. Euclid I

A

Lower court. Euclid zoning by category

Lower Ct says:
Ordinance is void because this looks more like unconstitutional taking if some property stick. Acres of undeveloped land is in a “straight jacket”

78
Q

Ambler v. Euclid II

A

SC says zoning is fine. Zoning is only unconstitutional when clearly arbitrary and unreasonable (no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare)

79
Q

1717 Bissonet LLC v. Loughead

A

Developer planned 23 story building near smaller developments. Near Rice University

Homeowners want injunction or money for prospective nuisance

Ct:
Yes on possibility of injunction but no injunction here (my case notes conflict with my class notes, so?)
No to damages for prospective nuisance

80
Q

Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut

A

Eminent domain case for “public use.” Gov wanted to take land for economic development with the intention of giving to Pfizer

Homeowners were holdouts

Ct:
Economic development is a “public use” as required by fifth amendment

So can take as long as compensation

Thomas and O’Connor are not fans

81
Q

Penn Coal Co v. Mahon

A

Guy buys a house over a coal deposit (doesn’t buy subsurface— so coal company can dig out coal)

Then Penn legislature makes it illegal to dig out coal from beneath a home

Ct:
This reaches a regulatory taking:
- reciprocity of advantage and
- diminished value

Gov has to pay if they want to do this and it must be for a “public use”

82
Q

Penn Central Station v. City of NY

A

Penn Station is a historic building, owner wants to make a big skyscraper over it. Historic buildings commission says no

Ct:
This is not a taking:
- economic impact
- amount of interference and income potential if no regulation
- character of government act

(Its unsaid, but also looks more like a taking if they are preventing you from doing something you are already doing vs. preventing you from doing something in the future)

Rehnquist Dissent:
This is a taking

Property (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions