Cases Flashcards
Ex. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (Supp)
Moore brought conversion claim after doctor used his spleen cells to patent a cell line based on his body chemistry.
Court held that no conversion claim existed. First, the patented cell lines were distinctive from Moore’s original cells (accession). Second, the cells were abandoned property (assumption from CA statute). Third, would discourage medical research.
Paying Moore might look like buying organs (market-inalienable goods).
Ex. INS v. Associated Press (Supp)
AP would post hot news on bulletin boards for the public to see. INS would take this hot news and send it to its affiliates in the Western U.S., eliminating AP’s advantage of finding the news first.
Held that there is a community property aspect to news. Acting as INS does is unfair competition. Not a property right between AP and the public but between AP and INS. While AP might “abandon” the property (news) to the public, it does not do so to INS.
Ex. Fitzgerald v. Modoc County (p.153)
P conveyed property to the County “to be used as and for a county high school.” County sold land to a private party instead.
Court held that these types of conditions were not favored by courts.
Therefore, because grant language did not explicitly express that this was a condition, it is considered to be, at the most, a covenant.
Merely indicating a purpose for the conveyance is not enough. The actual intent must be expressed clearly in the deed.
Ex of when the rules of construction
In re Marriage of Graham (p.240)
Wife worked as a flight attendant and paid for husband’s advanced education. Then they got divorced.
Court held that the advanced degree was not property.
NOTE: This was not a very good decision.
Most states don’t explicitly consider the professional degree to be the asset, but rather use the increased earning potential as the asset.
NY is only state that explicitly considers a professional degree to be a marital asset.
However, there is an issue with remedies because the court has to make assumptions regarding the spouse’s career trajectory.
Ex. Somer v. Kridel (p.614)
Tenant backed out of lease before he started living in apartment. Third party later came and asked about renting that apartment, was turned away. Landlord sued for total amount of rent.
Held that a landlord has a duty to mitigate damages. Must treat the vacated property just like other vacant stock. Should offer evidence that apartment was shown. Tenant can rebut with evidence that good candidates were turned away.
Implied Covenant To Deliver Possession
American rule
- Landlord is only required to put the tenant in legal possession.
- Could be someone squatting, not the landlord’s problem.
Implied covanent to put tennant in poss
English rule
- Covenant to place the tenant in actual possession of the entire premises at the beginning of the lease.
- Is the majority rule in the U.S.
Ex. Hannah v. Peel (Supp)
Man bought house, never visited it. House was rented out to soldiers. One soldier found a brooch hidden in the house. Dispute between soldier and owner of house as to ownership.
Held that a man possesses everything which is attached to or under his land. But a man does not possess a thing which is lying unattached on the surface of his land even though it is not possessed by someone else. Brooch was lost property, goes to soldier.
Limits on Trespass: Allowances for Public Policy
State v. Shack (p.372)
Farmer alleges trespass when an attorney and government social worker go on his farm to tell his migrant workers about their rights under an act of Congress.
Court completely denies the trespass claim here.
Public policy dictates the scope of private property rights. Private property rights exist for public benefit, and there are public policy reasons for that right not to be absolute here.
Owner has a duty not to limit the rights (conferred by the act of Congress) of the migrant workers.
Court holds that farmer has the right to restrict solicitors and peddlers and can ask other visitors to identify themselves so as to protect his workers.
KEY: There are different aspects of the right to exclude.
Compare to IP fair use doctrine for copyright.
Sometimes we have to balance between property rights and social interests because of public policy concerns.
Pierson v post
Merely pursuing a wild animal does not give rise to possession of it. Another person will have the right to capture or kill that animal.
Ghen v rich (whales
Discussion. The common law mandates that control is a necessary prerequisite to someone being able to possess a wild animal. However, the instant case is unique. First, the Plaintiff did everything in his power to possess the animal. Second, the widespread custom in the industry recognized this as the only realistic form of possession.
Keeble (duck case)
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Landowners are considered prior possessors (first possessors) of wild animals on their land.
International news
Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is a quasi property interest in news collected by an agency against other news collection agencies. It is unfair business competition for a news collection agency to distribute the news collected by another news collection agency.
Cheney bros (stealing fashion designs)
Discussion. Since there is no common law copyright law, the Plaintiff’s property right is limited to chattels that embody the invention, not the design pattern that has a short life. The Plaintiff has no property right to prevent any imitation of it. The United States Constitution (Constitution) confers only Congress the power to create this right, not the court.
Moore v Regents (cell stealing)
Brief Fact Summary. P brought several actions against Ds including conversion and breach of fiduciary duty when his cells were used in medical research without his permission.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Failure of a physician to disclose his personal interest unrelated to the patient’s health constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. A person does not retain ownership interest in cells after they have left their body.
White v Samsung (robot looks like betty white)
Discussion. In this case, the Court abandoned the strict common law rules of appropriation. The Defendant used a robot with mechanical features and did not use Plaintiff’s precise features. The robot at issue was not Plaintiff’s “likeness” within the meaning of section 3344. Nevertheless, the viewer of the ad could clearly see that it was an attempt to convey Plaintiff on the set of Wheel of Fortune. Defendant hoped to profit from Plaintiff’s fame without paying her for it. Because Plaintiff did not consent to such appropriation, Defendant is liable.
-Defendant’s claim of the parody defense is rejected. Parodies of advertisements run for the purpose of poking fun. In this case, the ad’s primary message is: “buy Samsung VCRs.” The difference between a parody and a knock-off is the difference between fun and profit.
Amory (old eng case - jewler tries to rip off chimney sweep boy)
Discussion. The first finder of lost or abandoned property has superior property rights in such property against all others except the true owner.
Hanna v peel (WW2 house)
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Because Defendant was not physically present in the house at any time, Plaintiff’s find was defensible against all parties except the rightful owner.
Discussion. The key factor here was that Defendant never resided in the house, but was still afforded an opportunity to claim the brooch by Plaintiff. Also, note that Plaintiff did not trespass in order to find the brooch.
McAvoy (purse left in bar, owner keeps)
Discussion. In this type of situation, the rightful owner would naturally seek his pocket-book in the shop where he had been, but he would not even be aware of a person in Plaintiff’s position, let alone be able to make a valid claim to retain the pocketbook from that person. Courts seek to achieve equitable results in cases such as these.
Van Valkenburg(adverse poss. Of right of way)
Brief Fact Summary. Appeal regarding an action for claim of title under adverse possession of a right of way.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. At the time of this case, to acquire real title to property by adverse possession, it must be shown by clear and convincing proof that for the statutory period of time there was actual occupation under a claim of title. The essential elements of proof are that the premises are protected by a substantial enclosure or usually cultivated or improved.
Title to real property may be acquired by adverse possession. Title by adverse possession results from the operation of the statute of limitations for trespass. If an owner does not, within the statutory period, take action to eject a possessor who claims adversely to the owner, title vests in the possessor. In order to have claim of title under adverse possession the possession must be open and notorious, actual and exclusive
Manillo
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Entry and possession of land for the required time which is exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible and notorious, even though under a mistaken claim of title, is sufficient to support a claim of title by adverse possession. In order to be open and notorious, a minor encroachment along a boundary line must be known by the true possessor of the land.
Discussion. Acquisition of title by adverse possession requires possession that is open and notorious, actual and exclusive, continuous and hostile for the statutory period of time. A mistaken belief that the land in possession is the possessors land will satisfy the hostility requirement. If the encroachment is upon a common boundary and is only minor, the factors of open and notorious will not be satisfied unless the true owner of the property knew about the encroachment.
Howard v. Kunto
Synopsis of Rule of Law. To constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession that is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period. Summer possession can constitute continuous possession if such possession is similar to the conduct of surrounding owners. Tacking of adverse possession is permitted if the successive occupants are in privity, if there is a reasonable connection between the predecessors and the successive occupants.
Discussion. Title to real property can be established by adverse possession. To establish adverse possession, the possessor of the land must show possession that is open and notorious, exclusive, continuous and hostile for a statutory period of time. If the possessor of the land can establish adverse possession he gains title to the land and cannot be ousted from the land. If a person who is trying to seek adverse possession can show privity, a personal connection with previous owners in the transfer of the land, tacking is permitted to show possession of the land for the statutory required time.
Okeefe
Issue. If chattels are stolen can title be acquired and later transferred to others regardless of their good faith purchase? Did the statute of limitations for replevin bar this cause of action? Whether the Defendant acquired adverse possession of the chattels?
Held. No, a thief cannot acquire title to a stolen chattel and cannot transfer good title to others, regardless of their good faith and ignorance of the theft. Remanded. The discovery rule applies so the Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when she first knew or should have know though the exercise of due diligence, of the cause of action. In determining whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the discovery rule the trial court should determine (1) whether the Plaintiff used due diligence to recover the paintings at the time of the alleged theft; (2) whether at the time of the alleged theft there was an effective method of for the Plaintiff to alert the art world of the theft and (3) whether registering the painting with an art organization would have put a reasonably prudent purchaser of art on constructive notice that someone other the possessor was the true owner. No, title to chattels cannot be acquired through adverse possession and the appropriate test is whether the owner of the chattels has acted with due diligence in pursuing his personal property.
Discussion. This case is significant because the rule of discovery, rather than adverse possession, is the significant consideration in determining title to chattels. Statute of limitations for replevin will not accrue unless the injured party in question fails to exercise reasonable and due diligence in discovering facts which form the basis for the cause of action. If the owner of the chattel unreasonably fails to discover facts leading to a cause of action then the statute of limitations will commence. At the end of the statute of limitations, if no cause of action has been filed, then the possessor of the chattel can acquire title by adverse possession. The principal question no longer is based upon the fact that the possessor has title by adverse possession, as it is difficult to establish whether possession of personal property has been open, notorious, hostile, exclusive and continuous.
Newman v. Bost
Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Julia Newman (Plaintiff), files suit against the Defendant, F. W. Bost (Defendant), the administrator of the deceased’s estate, claiming the Defendant converted gifts the deceased had made to her by gift causa mortis.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. To constitute a gift causa mortis, a gift made in contemplation of and expectation of immediate death, there must be an intention to make a gift and actual delivery of that gift. The donor of the gift can expressly or impliedly intend to make a gift, but it must be clear that the donor knew what he was doing and that he intended to make a gift. Actual manual delivery must occur when articles are present and capable of manual delivery. Constructive delivery may occur when the things intended to be given are not present, or when present are incapable of manual delivery because of their weight or size.
