Cases and Holdings Flashcards
Johnson v. M’Intosh
A government which discovers/conquers terra nullius (land not previously discovered by white, Christian men for a sovereign power) has a right of ownership of that land.
Title to land is held by the discovering or conquering government until it is purchased by or granted to another party, whether a state or an individual. (Indians merely have right to occupy)
Pierson v. Post
Mere pursuit of an object, no matter how near attaining the object the pursuer, is not enough to constitute possession. Possession requires bodily possession (manucapture), mortal wounding, or the ability to escape being highly impaired (deprived of actual liberty).
Policy: Livingston’s dissent: No one would hunt foxes if other came in at the last second to take the animal away from the original pursuer. Custom here was ignored (sportsmen were not asked opinion).
Ghen v. Rich
The whaling industry’s custom takes precedent: one who mortally wounds a whale and affixes upon it a symbol of his/her brand is the owner and possessor of that whale, no matter who should discover it.
Policy: No person would engage in the practice if the fruits of his labor could be appropriated by any chance finder.
However, this holding discourages the industry from developing a more efficient mechanism for whaling.
Keeble v. Hickeringill
An owner of property has a given right to make profitable and lawful use of his own property without malicious interference of others.
International News Service v. Associated Press
Quasi-property rights, “postpone participation by a news distributor’s competitor in the processes of distribution and reproduction of news that it has not gathered, and only to the extent necessary to prevent that competitor from reaping the fruits of complainant’s efforts and expenditure.”
Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp
In absence of some trademark, or recognized right at common law, or under a statute, a man’s property right is limited to the actual chattels that embody his invention. Others may imitate these at their pleasure. (Copyrighted, patented, trademarked, or in physical form).
Smith v. Chanel, Inc.
In absence of some trademark, or recognized right at common law, or under a statute, a man’s property right is limited to the actual chattels that embody his invention. Others may imitate these at their pleasure. So long as they do not claim that they are the same product (made by the same entity as the original).
White v. Samsung Electronics (dissent)
“Under the majority’s opinion, it’s now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity’s name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity’s image in the public’s mind…. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It’s bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look.”
“Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture.”
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Body parts may not be sold for profit; the theory of conversion does not apply to cells/body parts taken from a patient.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
Not “giving a fuck” is not a permissible excuse to invade a private land owner’s right to the land.
Society has an interest in punishing and deterring intentional trespassers beyond that of protecting the interests of the individual landowner. Society has an interest in preserving the integrity of the legal system. Private landowners should feel confident that wrongdoers who trespass upon their land will be appropriately punished. When landowners have confidence in the legal system, they are less likely to resort to ‘self-help’ remedies….”
State v. Shack
“A man’s right in his real property of course is not absolute. It was a maxim of the common law that one should so use his property as not to injure the rights of others. Although hardly a precise solvent of actual controversies, the maxim does express the inevitable proposition that rights are relative and there must be an accommodation when then meet. Hence it has long been true that necessity, private or public, may justify entry upon the lands of another.
Armory v. Delamirie
The title of the finder is good against the whole world but the true owner. (If the jewel was not produced, the court would assume that the jewel stolen was the most valuable jewel possible).
Hannah v. Peel
Because Defendant was not physically present in the house at any time and did not know of the brooch’s existence, Plaintiff’s find was defensible against all parties except the rightful owner. Honest finders will be rewarded.
Andersen v. Goldberg
One who has acquired the possession of property, whether by finding, bailment, or mere tort has a right to retain the possession as against a mere wrongdoer who is a stranger to that property.
Bridges v. Hawkesworth (Part of Hannah v. Peel)
Held that the banknotes belonged to the finder, as the shopkeeper never truly held ownership of the banknotes (the notes were in a public area of the shop, and were left on the floor and the true owner couldn’t be found) [mislaid, lost, or abandoned]
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman
Land owner carries with it possession of everything which is attached or under that land even without knowledge of its being there.
Elwes v. Brigg Gaw Co.
Owner had no knowledge of the boat being under the ground, and such, the finder is entitled to the boat.
McAvoy v. Medina
When an item is found on a table or “misplaced,” in a shop, the shop owner is entitled to keep it over the finder. This is to provide the best possible means of returning the item to its rightful owner. Shop owner has a duty to attempt to return the property to its rightful owner.
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz
Adverse possession requires an entry that is open and notorious, continuous for the statutory period, adverse, and under a claim of right (hostile). Proof of claim of right can be substantial improvements to the land, and enclosures.
Howard v. Kunto
Tacking of adverse possession is permitted if the successive occupants are in “privity” – privity of estate which connects the possession of the successive occupants.
It has become firmly established that the requisite possession requires such possession and dominion as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general in holding, managing, and caring for property of like nature and condition.
Buchanan v. Cassell
if the evidence shows that the deed to X was intended by the parties to convey not only the described land but also the adversely possessed strip, X is allowed to “tack” that strip onto the land described in the deed.
O’Keefe v. Snyder
Discovery Rule: “In an appropriate case, 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 action.” Putting in reasonable diligence to recover the stolen or misplaced goods tolls the statutory period (makes it stop).
Under the doctrine of adverse possession, the burden is on the possessor to prove the elements of adverse possession. Under the discovery rule, the burden is on the owner as the one seeking the benefit of the rule to establish facts that would justify deferring the beginning of the period of limitations.
Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc.
Good title cannot be passed on in a sale by a thief. The court noted that the due diligence determination is “highly fact-sensitive and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.”
Pile v. Pedrick
Even if the construction intrudes one and one half inches into the neighboring property, and built in good faith, the encroached upon may compel the builder to knock down the offending structure.
Raab v. Casper
Once a person acting in good faith is put on notice of his/her possible trespass, it is negligent for that person to continue to build in ignorance of the actual boundaries.
Newman v. Bost
- To constitute a donatio causa mortis, two things are indispensably necessary: an intention to make a gift, and a delivery of the thing given.
- 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.
- “But “the bureau and any other article of furniture, locked and unlocked by any of the keys given to the plaintiff, did pass and she became the owner thereof.” This is because these items were too big to be manually delivered manually, “and the delivery of the keys was a constructive delivery of these articles, equivalent to an actual delivery if the articles had been capable of manual delivery.” “We are of the opinion that other articles of household furniture (except those in the plaintiff’s private bed chamber) did not pass to the plaintiff, but remained the property of the defendant’s intestate.”
Gruen v. Gruen
In order for an inter vivos gift to be valid, there must be intent on the part of the donor to make a gift, delivery by the donor to the donee and acceptance of the gift by the donee. An inter vivos gift requires that the donor intend to make an irrevocable present transfer of ownership. Delivery of the gift can be by physical, constructive, or symbolic delivery, sufficient to divest the donor of dominion of the property. Acceptance by the donee will be presumed when the gift is of value to the donee.
Matter of Szabo – what is sufficient to constitute delivery must be tailored to suit the circumstances of the case; the delivery necessary to consummate a gift must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably permit
Spiller v. Mackereth
Unless there has been an ouster, the co-tenant in possession does not have to pay a proportionate share of the rental value to the cotenants not in possession. In order to prove ouster, a cotenant not in possession must show that EITHER she demanded and was denied entry, OR the co-tenant in possession actively prevented the non-possessory cotenant from entering (adding new locks is simply an action of a normal owner).
Varnum v. Brien
Property rights apply equally to all citizens. To hold otherwise would violate the Equal Protection Clause (according to Iowa). You cannot grant privileges to one class over another.
United States v. 1500 Lincoln Avenue
Wife allowed to retain interest in property despite husband’s illegal activities. Tenancy in the entirety.
Mahoney v. Mahoney
Ct declined to recognize a professional degree as marital property. Such an item was too speculative in value. There will be circumstances where a supporting spouse should be reimbursed for the financial contributions he or she made to the spouse’s successful professional training.
Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
- An owner of a property who intentionally creates and maintains a nuisance is liable for the injuries caused regardless of the degree of care or skill taken to avoid such injury. (This is an example of a rule 1 - the resident held the initial right to the activity and set the price of stopping the nuisance.)
- “Any substantial nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land by any type of liability forming conduct is a private nuisance; that the invasion which subjects a person to liability for private nuisance may be either intentional or unintentional; that a person is subject to liability for an unintentional invasion when his conduct is negligent, reckless or ultrahazardous.”
Jost v. Dairyland Power Coop.
(Goes against the Restatement’s take on nuisance)
When the damage suffered by residents (threshold is “substantial interference”), the polluter strictly liable for the damages caused. Damages are calculated according to the degree of danger and injury created by Defendant’s conduct, regardless of Defendant’s degree of care.
Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co.
The court held that, “in the atomic age” to define a trespass as, “any intrusion which invades the possessor’s protected interest in exclusive possession, whether that intrusion is by visible or invisible pieces of matter or by energy which can be measured only by the mathematical language of the physicist.” (referring to fumes from an aluminum plant)
Wilson v. Interlake
Excessive noise alone would not support trespass action absent some kind of physical invasion or physical damage to the property. Intangible intrusions must be approached on a nuisance theory.
