I. Concepts of Property - Capture, Rights & Limitations Flashcards
Pierson v. Post (Capture)
Rule of capture for ownership requires making escape impossible (mortally wounding, killing, or actual capture)
Pierson captures and kills fox that Post was hunting.
Popov v. Hayashi (Capture)
When a person completes a significant portion of the steps to achieve possession of an item, but is thwarted due to the unlawful conduct of another, that person is entitled to a pre-possessory interest of the item.
Popov grabbed Barry Bond’s record breaking 73rd home run ball, others jump him and Hayashi grabs it.
White v. Samsung (Right of Publicity)
The common-law right of publicity can protect a celebrity’s identity from unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Samsung runs ad invoking image of Vanna White without her consent.
Moore v. Regents (Right to Transfer)
(1) A physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all material personal interests that may influence her professional judgment before securing a patient’s informed consent to medical treatment.
(2) Once cells leave a patient’s body, they are no longer that patient’s property.
Regents usses Moore’s cells for research without consent.
Johnson v. M’Intosh (Right to Transfer)
Land title transfers are only valid when made under the rule of the currently prevailing government.
Indians gave Johnson’s father land, but US government sold part of that land to M’Intosh after Declaration of Independence.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes (Right to Exclude)
Under Wisconsin law, a jury has discretion to award punitive damages for intentional trespasses, even if compensatory damages were not warranted and only nominal damages were awarded.
Steenberg trespasses to deliver mobile home to Jaque’s neighbor.
State v. Shack (Right to Exclude)
The ownership of real property does not include the right to refuse access to individuals providing government services to workers who are housed on the property.
Tedesco refuses private legal consultation for his migrant farm workers.
Sundowner v. King (Property Rights)
Under common law, no property owner has the right to erect and maintain a structure, not for any purpose useful to himself, but for the sole purpose of damaging a neighbor. (Gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, e.g. more harm than good)
King builds spite fence which blocks light and air to neighboring Desert Inn.
Prah v. Maretti (Property Rights)
Private nuisance law is applicable in disputes over access to sunlight.
Maretti builds house on adjacent lot, blocking light to Prah’s solar panels.
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement (Property Rights)
Permanent damages, rather than an injunction, are appropriate when the damages resulting from a nuisance are significantly less than the economic benefit derived from the party causing the harm.
Atlantic’s cement plan causes pollution to nearby houses, court awards permanent damages instead of injunction.
Thomsen v. Greve (Property Rights)
Intentionally interfering with others’ use and enjoyment of their home by subjecting them to odor and smoke is a nuisance.
Greves had a wood burning stove that caused smoke to enter Thomsen home.
Limitations on Property Rights
- Right to Exclude –State v. Shack
- Right to Transfer – Moore v. UC Regents, Johnson v. M’Intosh
- Right to Possess and Use – Sundowner v. King, Prah v. Maretti, Boomer, Greve
- Right to Destroy - [Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust; not assigned]
Trespass
(1) intentional entry, (2) causing object/person to enter another’s land, OR (2) failing to remove item if duty exists
* No damages required; easier to prove than nuisance
* Mistake of possession is NOT a defense (but necessity is)
Intentional Private Nuisance (SUUNI)
(1) Intentional: Conduct is intentional if the defendant acts for the purpose of causing the harm or knows that harm is resulting or substantially certain.
* For Unintentional Private Nuisance - Unintentional but otherwise actionable under tort culpability (negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous)
(2) Nontrespassory: Light, odor, noise, vibrations, and other intrusions that do not involve physical entry onto the plaintiff’s land meet this element.
(3) Unreasonable: In some states, this is conduct that causes substantial harm; in most states, the gravity of harm must outweigh the utility of conduct.
(4) Substantial interference: There must be a “real and appreciable invasion of the plaintiff’s interests,” not merely a trivial impact.
(5) Use and enjoyment of land: The conduct must affect the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of land, such as causing damage to the property or personal injury to the occupants.
Unreasonableness of intentional invasion of interest
3 Possible ways it can be unreasonable
1) gravity of harm outweighs utility (SSI) - Balancing test (section 826(a)),
or
* gravity of harm
– extent of harm
– character of harm
– social value of use/enjoyment invaded
– suitability of invaded use to character of locality
– burden/impracticability on person harmed to avoid harm
- utility of conduct
– social value of conduct
– suitability of conduct to character of locality
– impracticality of prevention/avoidance of invasion
2) harm is serious and financial burden of compensation for it and similar harms to others makes activity financially NOT infeasible, or
3) harm is severe and greater than should be born
without financial compensation (829A)
