Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

MD Property Law > Property Case > Flashcards

Property Case Flashcards

1
Q

Jacque v. Steenburg Homes

A

Punitive damage w/o any physical damage for trespass. Basic right to exclude others from your property. reasoning is not important

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

Hinman v. Pacific Air

A

Planes flying over your house is not trespass, maybe nuisance if can prove damages. Limits the Ad Coelum Doctrine (heaven/hell doctrine).

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

Pile v. Pendrick

A

building unintentionally crosses land(1.375”) is Tresspass must take it down (property rule)

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

Golden Press Inc. v. Rylands

A

Current Rule - Small infringement made in good faith does not have to come down, but damages required. Slippery slope

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

Baker v. Howard County Hunting Club

A

Dogs trespassing - to get injunctive relief must show
1 Damages must be inadequate
2 Remedies must be blanced
3 Party’s actions must be assessed (clean hands)
4. Avoid limitation of latches (cannot sit on your rights forever without asserting them)

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

Hendricks v. Stalnaker

A

installed well prevented that prevented the installation of neighbors septic system is not nuisance.

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

Newman V. Satyavaglswaran

A

Court held that next of kin have exclusive rights to body (corneas) violation of due process to take w/o asking

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

Moore v. Regents of U. of Cal.

A

Moore wants cut of the profits made from a cell line created from his spleen via conversion. Court says no

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

Moakley v. Eastwick

A

Statues can affect and alter property rights.

Here limits ability to destroy piece of art on their property

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

US v. Corrow

A

Selling of cultural Patrimony.
Some property should be inalienable because there is less chance of harm if the people who want to sell can’t as a result of a statute rather then them being taken advantage of and selling something that cannot be replaced

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

Trespass to Chattles

A

Injure or interfere with property

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

Intel v. Hamidi

A

Must be able to show injury to have trespass to chattles.

Best remedy is Self help or legislature

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

Berg v. Wiley

A

Use of self help to re-take land. CL- you can only use self help if:

1) Landlord is legally entitled to possession.
2) Re-entry is peaceful as a matter of law.
3) property is abandoned. Courts want you to see judicial remedy.

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

Williams v. Ford Motor Credit

A

Repossession of ex-wife’s car was legal because she didn’t object to the taking of the car (legally).
Had she made a scene or called the police would not have been peaceful

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

Ploof v. Putnam

A

Necessity Case.

No right to untie boat from private dock when there was the necessity due to the storm.

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

Vincent v. Lake Erie

A

It’s ok to tie up to a private dock in an emergency but you must pay for the damages to the dock. Liability Rule

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

McConico v. Singleton

A

Custom.

Hunting is such a deep custom you cannot prevent someone from hunting on your unenclosed land

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

Uston v. Resorts International Hotel

A

Exclusion.

Casino doesn’t have the right to exclude a card counter but the gaming commission does.

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

Shelley v. Kramer

A

Anti-Discrimination.
14th amendment only bars states from racial discrimination. However you cannot enforce a racially restrictive covenant w/o gov. enforcement

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

Attorney General v. Desilets

A

Religious Discrimination.
Balancing test: Religious conduct is protected and burdened by the state statute. This must be balanced with the states interests in enforcing the statute

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

Wood v. Leadbitter

A

bought ticket and was kicked out of horse race.

Licenses are revocable at will. Once revoked person is trespasser which allows for self help.

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

Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club

A

bought ticket and was kicked out and barred. License is not an in rem rights. It is a contract between owner and spectator (in personam).
Remedy is breach of contract.
Liability rule- forced sale of his ticket. No self help

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

Hurst v. Picture Theaters

A

Bought a movie ticket and was kicked out.
Wood no longer good law.
Hurst was not a trespasser because he had a right to be there and it is a tort to remove him.

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

Pro CD v. Zeidenberg

A

Shrink wrap licenses are ok if there’s notice on the box.
In Personam right; a contract between buyer and seller.
Policy: pro business- gov steps in and limits buyers rights to uphold business interests

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

Pocono Springs v. McKenzie

A

Want to abandon property but they want.
Abandonment is intent to relinquish title without burdening another person.
Need intent and action. Can’t abandon real property

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

Everyman

A

Woman wants her house destroyed after her death. Court steps in- typically have the right to destroy but not when it’ll have a negative economic effect on the community.
Will step in when persons bequest is outlandish or ridiculous.

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

Lauderbaugh v. Williams

A

Court restricts absolute restraints on transferablity. Any restraints must be reasonable and not perpetual.
Court looks at the motive behind the creation; interdependence;
and how many people it excludes.

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

Iron v. Smallpiece

A

Father’s gift of colts to his son wasn’t valid.

No gift because no delivery. Also his actions weren’t indicative of someone who received a gift

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

Foster v. Reece

A

Telling her husband where he could get things she wanted him to have.
Court no delivery no deal.
Like statue of frauds used to delivery used to limit fraud.

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

Adams v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.

A

Does the operation of a mine constitute a trespass as opposed to nuisance?
Trespass requires physical tangible invasions.
Cost Benefit analysis between property owner and mine worker.
Penner - Because they vindicate completely different rights you can be ok with a complete right to exclude and also ok with preventing the causing of nuisance.

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

St Helen’s smelting v. Tipping

A

Locality rule.
Despite the smelting plant being in an industrial area the damage was so bad that it was still a nuisance. (overrules balancing test)
No matter where it’s operated it’d be a nuisance.

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

Luensmanv. Zimmer-Zampse

A

Drag racing strip is not declared a nuisance in the jx and there was no warning of any violated conduct (as prescribed by the law) therefore no nuisance per say

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co

A

Court shifts towards a liability rule vs a property rule.

Cement plant to play damages instead of facing an injunction.

34
Q

Spur v. Del Webb

A

Despite the fact that Del Webb “came to the nuisance” the feed lot must move because it is a public policy concern.
However Webb must pay for the relocation.
Public nuisance suit may have forced relocation w/o financial help.

35
Q

Baseball Publishing v. Burton

A

Buying right to put Ad on building is not a lease because it’s possessory.
More then a license so it’s not revocable at will.
It is an easement in gross~ a contract granting exclusive rights and privilidge.
Court orders specific performance

36
Q

Schwab v. Timmons

A

Schwab landlocked himself then tried to gain an easement by necessity from neighbor.
Only satisfies the necessary requirement, was self inflicted.
Courts don’t like implied easements.

37
Q

Warsaw v. Chiago Metals

A

Drives on neighbors land to get trucks to loading dock. Neighbor has to tear down newly constructed building because P had a prescriptive easement on the neighbors property.
Should have granted a license that could have been revoked

38
Q

Fountainebleau Hotel v. 4545 inc

A

Built hotel to block rival’s sunlight.
No implied easement to sunlight and air.
Court heavily disfavors negative easements.

39
Q

Tulk v. Moxhay

A

Covenant requiring the upkeep of a square and prohibited building. Written initially but not in subsequent deed.
Notice is enough for Equity in Covenants.
Runs with the land

40
Q

Neponsit Property v. Emigrant Savings bank (Real Covenants Case)

A

homeowner tried not to pay fees outlined in covenant.

Although HOA did not own land there was significant touch and concern with the land to make it valid.

41
Q

Sanborn v. McLean - Reciprocal Negative Easement Case

A

Gas station in back yard. Residential only covenant was not in his deed but was in a majority of the others= reciprocal negative Easement
One original owner who subdivided.
Inquiry notice- could have looked around and asked.
MI very liberal on this</p>

42
Q

Bolotin v. Ringe

A

Wants commercial building on corner lot of residential area.
Possible benefit to P not important.
Increase value of commercial vs residential sale if restrictions are not inequitable or oppressive.

43
Q

Peckham v. Milroy

A 
Covenant restricting home businesses(here daycare) 
Covenant valid - 
1) No abandonment of Covenant 
2) no Latches  
3) No equitable Estoppel
44
Q

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty

A

New zoning laws prevent intended use of 68 acres.
Zoning laws are constitutional so long as they are enacted reasonably.
Check on power is to vote for people with your interests.
Courts are usually very reluctant to invalidate zoning.

45
Q

Southern Burlington NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel

A

Exclusionary zoning -

NJ court ruled that every city must provide housing that meets every income level. NJ is extreme

46
Q

Berman v. Parker

A

Condemnation of 5000 house in DC, some sold to private parties for redevelopment.
It’s ok since it was part of a well thought out plan to improve the community

47
Q

Hawaii Housing v. Medkiff

A

22 people owned 70% of land in hawaii.
Gov took it and sold it to public to increase quality of life and home-ownership (pure redistribution).
Court upheld due to public benefit.
Failed miserably speculators swooped in to buy it up and prices skyrocketed.

48
Q

Kelo v. New London CT

A

Economic redevelopment is ok so long as:

1) there’s a plan.
2) must be mainly for public benefit.
3) states are free to limit eminent domain via statue.

49
Q

Penn Coal v. Mahon

A

Couple tries to enjoin mining under their property after they only bought surface rights.
Does the regulation go to far?
1) reciprocity of advantage.
2) Diminution of value (denominator Prob.)
3) Nuisance vs public good balancing test

50
Q

Penn Central v. NYC

A

Penn central Balancing test:

1) Economic Impact.
2) Investment Backed expectations.
3) Character of Gov. Action (physical invasion)

51
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter of Manhattan

A

Permanent physical install of cable equipment is a Per se taking requiring just compensation.

52
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

A

New zoning law that prevented his development of beachfront property was a Per Se Taking.
Took all economic value from property.

53
Q

Williams v. Estate of Williams

A

Determining what interests 3 daughters had in land.
When wording of a will is unclear must look to authors intent.
Courts interpret wills to avoid intestacy.
Finds the closest estate to match the will.

54
Q

City of Klamath Falls. V. Bell

A

Granted property “so long as” it was used as a library then back to principle holders of corp.
Fee simple subject to executory limitation violated the RAP.
Ends up going to corp heads anyway.

55
Q

Johnson v. Whiton

A

Numerus Clausus.
“to sarah and her heirs on her father’s side” creates a fee tail.
Cannot create new types of ownership

56
Q

Garner v. Gerish

A

Dispute over who can terminate a lease at will L or T.
Reads it like a contract vs a freehold estate.
Upholds the terms of the lease only T can terminate at will.

57
Q

Brokaw v. Fairchild

A

Waste.
Cannot tear down house and rebuild when you have a life estate.
Life estate holder does not have the right to cause permanent damage to the inheritance.
Increase in value for future intest holders does not matter

58
Q

Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscano

A

Restraints on alienation.
Gift of Lodge that cannot be sold or transferred is a restraint on alienation.
Restraints on use are valid.

59
Q

Symphone Space v. Pergola Properties

A

Option to buy in lease terms is invalid due to RAP.
Corps have no measuring life- just 21 years.
Discussion over whether 25 year option should have just been capped at 21 years to make valid.

60
Q

Delfino v. Velencis

A

Brothers want to end tenancy in common by partition by sale so they can develop it.
Sister lives there so Partition in Kind. (living on the property is a important factor.
Court favors partition in kind.

61
Q

Harms v. Sprague

A

One joint tenant takes out a mortgage on the house.
This does not sever the joint tenancy because he can only mortgage his interest.
As soon as they die, so does their interest and hence the mortgage.

62
Q

Gilmore v. Gilmore

A

Grazing the land to such an extent that prevents other tenants in common from using it is Ouster.
Must pay rent to fair value of the land.

63
Q

In re Estate of Filfiley

A

Withdrawing money from a joint account doesn’t sever the joint tenancy.
The closer the property is to $ the more likely the court will treat it that way and split it 50-50.

64
Q

Paradine v. Jane

A

Leased land was occupied by prince therefore he refused to pay rent.
Court held that Rent was due.
If you expect the possible gains in the land you must accept the possible losses.
Landlord had nothing to do with his losses.

65
Q

Smith v. McEnany

A

Property rule.
Landlord encroached slightly on the leased property with a brick wall.
Tenant rented the whole land and it is not divisible therefor he pays no rent.
If bricks removed then rent would be due.

66
Q

Sutton v. Temple

A

Lead paint in the land kills cows.
No implied warranty of use (Caveat Lessee) could have included warranty in contract.
Rent still due.

67
Q

Blackett v. Olanoff

A

Constructive eviction due to loud music in lounge that Landlord did nothing to control.

68
Q

In re Kerr

A

Surrender Doctrine.
Tenant declares bankruptcy. Landlord gets a new tenant and then sues original tenant for rent.
Lessee offered to leave and Landlord accepted by re-renting.
No rent due.

69
Q

Medico Dental v. Horton

A

Horton breached terms of the contract by allowing another tenant to sell drugs.
Violations of the terms of the contract are enough to void the lease. No Rent due
Modern view of Leases

70
Q

Javins v. First National Reality

A

Implied warranty of Habitability.
Tenants found 15k violations after they moved in, refused to pay rent.
If violations occurred after they moved in then rent is not due lease is void.
Huge shift in lease interpretation reacting to change in times.
Applies only to residential leases

71
Q

Sommer v. Kridel

A

Duty to Mitigate.
T tried to give up lease L refused to acknowledge and sued for back rent.
L has duty to try and re-lease the property.
T responsible for vacant months and any difference in Rent.

72
Q

Mullendore v. Growth Reality

A

Security deposit for promise not to default does not touch and concern the land thus does not run with the land.
In personam contract.
Should have been for repairs.

73
Q

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Assn.

A

Courts will only void a restrictive covenant (here pets) if it is deemed unreasonable.
What’s in the deed is very hard to overturn.
Courts like deeds.

74
Q

40W 67th st v. Pullman

A

Co-op votes out a crazy guy.
Court follows business management rule - so long as the standard of review was reasonable the court will respect the co-op’s decision.

75
Q

Pierson v. Post

A

Taking of fox being hunted by another.
Un-owned property is not yours until you physically possess it.
Need to show intent and control

76
Q

Eads v. Brazelton.

A

ownership of abandoned steam boat.
Intent and work upfront is not enough you must also possess it.
Must show Due diligence (resources and in process of controlling) depends on the context and relevant practice.

77
Q

Popov v. Hayashi

A

Barry bonds HR ball.
Court: Both men have an interest in the ball against the world.
Partition by sale.

78
Q

Johnson v. M’intosh

A

Conflicting chains of title (indian land).
Two ways to extinguish right of occupancy:
Purchase/treaty or conquest.

79
Q

Edwards v. Sims

A

Cave under property. Neighbor had no access
Title based theory.
If you have the title you have the rights.
Title rights> then occupancy rights.

80
Q

Leasee of Ewing v. Burnet (sand quarry)

A

Adverse possession is content specific in regards to actual and exclusivity.
Claiming ownership and dominion is good for exclusive.

81
Q

Carpenter v. Ruperto

A

farming someone else’s land.
Knowing property is not yours ruins the “adverse” requirement.
Most states don’t care about knowledge of actual ownership

82
Q

Howard v. Kunto

A

summer house deed mix-up.
D argues house is his due to Adverse possession.
Use of home for just the summer is OK for continuous use (consistent with vacation home).
As long as there is privity you can tack on years for the statutory period(add hours of various owners). </p>

MD Property Law (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions