Exclusion and Access Cases Flashcards
State v. Shack
Summary: Migrant workers, govt funded doctor and lawyer
Holding: Property rights are not absolute - a landowner can not deny his workers a right to privacy or to enjoy his public services
Glavin v. Eckman
Summary: Neighbors had a landscaper take down trees in their neighbors yard to improve their view.
Issue: Should damages be awarded based on diminution, market value of timber, or restoration costs?
Holding: Damages can be awarded based on restoration costs when market value of the item of diminution is unavailable or unsatisfactory.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
Summary: Mobile home manufacturers crossed someone else’s land to deliver a home after being refused entry.
Issue: Can punitive damages be awarded for intentional trespassing when there were no compensatory damages awarded?
Holding: In cases of intentional trespass punitive damages can be awarded without compensatory damages because the individual and societal interests of protecting landowner’s rights.
Uston v. Resort International Hotel, Inc. (Minority view)
Summary: Man banned from casino because he used a counting card strategy for black jack.
Issue: Can a place open to the general public have the right to exclude people for any reason?
Holding: No - patrons possess the usual right of reasonable access to Resorts International’s tables because they are a place open to the business.
Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association
Summary: The Bay Head Association was denying members of the public from using their sand to cross over to use the beach, which is a right given by the public trust doctrine.
Issue: Does the public have the right to gain access to the tidal lands through the sandy area owned by a quasi public body?
Holding: The public must be given both access to and use of privately owned dry sand areas as reasonably necessary and the Association’s membership must be open to the public.
Madden v . Queens
- didn’t read this case but it’s the majority view on right to access businesses
holding: owners have an absolute right to exclude without cause and limits the “duty to serve” to innkeepers and common carriers
