Property cases Flashcards
Prah v. Maretti:
guy has solar heater on his house, private Nuisance. Issue? Issue was is the private nuisance doctrine applicable in this case for solar energy and the use of his home. 2. this case had seek injunctive relief, which has a higher standard of proof.
understanding the difference between Sundowner v. king from Prah v. Maretti
- understand that private nuisance is a different cause of action and spike fence. - There are similarities between spite fence and private nuisance. But there’s differences spite fence requires a subjective intent, whereas private nuisance only requires intent not specific intent - In both cases, they talk about sunlight. I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SUNLIGHT that would actually create chaos in cities where this law is still evolving, but it does have does give weight to we’re moving towards having more rights to sunlight,
Eyerman vs. Mercantile Trust
THIS IS A PRIVATE NUISANCE CASE: The issue is this lady’s WILL directed the demolition or her home, that So basically, fighting over whether the executor of the WILL can go through with that or not.
Eyerman vs. Mercantile Trust PART II why is this case in the book.
- The court recognized the right to a private nuisance action when someone threatens to destroy. - This case is in this book because it’s an expansion of private nuisance that it establishes the destroying something can be a private nuisance. - Just like the way creating something like a house that causes a shadow can cause private nuisance.
Eyerman vs. Mercantile Trust Part III the Dissent, why is the dissent important?
Why is the dissent important to this case? What did they say, what is the descent feel about the public policy argument of the majority? - he particularly finds problems with the public policy argument - the dissenting judge brings up that it would cause questionable legal precedent. Like, you can’t prove that the like. If alive she could just have her house torn down. No problem. So what’s the difference when she’s dead. - the dissent also finds that this public policy is wispy and ill defined. - The court failed to stick with the fact that what the plaintiffs brought is not discussed
State v. Shaw
What is the issue? whether the owner of the nets controlled the right to the fish.
State v. Shaw part II, what are the differences in this case
The fish must be controlled, but it doesn’t say certain control, they must maintain control. Therefore, they don’t need that absolute possession. You want to think about the type of animal when you’re thinking about how to apply the rule of capture different animals different rules. it introduces the degrees of control. In pierson for a fox. You need certain control and in Shaw they just say control and they can’t escape. Pierson requires more in order to capture the animal than shaw.
state v shaw. Part III what where the standards of review
- Pierson was a case of first impression. There was no statutory law. 2. Shaw- is a case of statutory analysis, they’re looking at the larceny law and seeing how larceny applies in this situation. So they had very different standards of review.
Armory v.Delamirie chimeny case
The finder of lost property has more rights to the property than anyone except the rightful owner
does not have title (entire bundle fo sticks)
Law uses title in two different ways.
- indication of actual ownership
- or Title as the entire bundle
title is relative, not absolute. You can split the paper title from possession (think gruen)
timeframe of finders
- Common law -The rightful owner always has greater rights than any subsequent possessor.
- Statutory law: timeframe based on jurisdiction.
Hannah v. Peel what is the issue?
broach in the window sill
Peel held title to the land but never moved in! this was key in the decision.
What is the issue? does the finder of loss chattel on another one another’s property have rights to that chattel superior to the rights of the property owner? Or
does hannah I have the right to property found on his land where There were people has title, but not possession.
look at how professor runs through hannah v. peel
your are trying to distinguish when the law of capture is applicable and when you would apply finders law!
If it’s lost the owner would unintentionally in voluntarily part with it. The court calls it lost. What we are going to break down is why they call it .
mislaid owner voluntarily and knowing places somewhere that unintentionally forgets it, it’s in a crevice above a window so it makes sense to put it in mislaid but the Court does not find that it is mislaid they find it is lost.
abandoned the owner gives up. All right, title and interest to the property. But is it possible, somebody abandoned the broach it was left so long. It was covered in dust and cobwebs. There is a really strong case to be made for abandoned.
The only category that we don’t have evidence for is the one that the Court uses, this is a reference to Hannah V. peel
hannah v peel - why was the property catorgorized as lost
peel did what he should, in the course of any employment, because if you find something in the course of employment, it belongs to your employer, not you (that is if there is not better owner)
tips for the exam on finders from professor
Usually only prima facia cases but we will see these precedent cases again for finders
On an exam discuss what category that the item belongs in whether it is lost mislaid or abandoned.
·nd realize that it’s incredibly rare that it’s going to be clear cut. So, almost. Almost always, you’re going to want to talk about at least two and maybe all three categories.
So you’re going to want to distinguish “I am choosing this item as falling into lost (mislaid or abandoned) because” and explain all the facts that tell you that it is more like
here are all the factors that explain lost (mislaid or abandoned), which category and why. (public or private, you need to determine
YOU MUCH DISCUSS THE ROLE OF THE FINDER)
if you’re in a weird place realized that the law is constantly evolving. So when we get to finders the law has evolved to decide. There are places that are private but have public spaces and those are different than public or private
· 01:25:07discussed how the space that you’re talking about on the exam falls into one category better than the other. Don’t get flustered by the ambiguity.
think about:
Valuable baseball nothing like manure
What does this add to our understanding of how to categorize property?
Type of property can change from where it is found
A baseball can be worth something if caught in stadium vs found in a park!
Think about car parts on the side of the road, vs car parts
State of property matters a lot, a brand new car is nothing like my old toyota
if you are a guest
You do not own anything that is on that private property because you are invited
Finders:
what degree of control did the owner exhibit over the land?
need to think how you will use this in your answer.
how do these cases link to Hanah v. peel
keep in mind that our finders law are much different from international, due to customs.
- Bridges v. hawkesworth (wallet on the ground in shop). the shopowner owned the shop but i was a public place. in fact that the shop owner did not have _exclusive contro_l is very important. It is the precedent that guides the holding in Hannah V. Peel
- South Staffordshire Water Co V. Sharman (employee finds rings on someones land that they are working for) different from bridges v. hawkesworth. It’s an employee. BUT the land was controlled by the owner of the land
- Elwes v. briggs gas co- this was a contractual issue, the find went beyond the scope of the contract and therefore went to the owener in control of the land_._
4. Mcavoy v. Medina (barber shop, pocketbook on table) THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION. it differs from Bridges because the pocketbook is found in the barber cuting area and is classified as mislaid, goes to the owener of the barber shop.
Mcavoy v. Medina (barber shop, pocketbook on table)
this is a case of first impression
- Note: this case has the same facts as bridges case cited in Hannah, but a different outcome, do not confuse the two cases
case of first impression, which will differentiate mislaid property from found property
the barber had exclusive control of this area
McAvoy v. Medina: pocketbook at the barber
this is the case of first impression, which will differetniate mislaid property from found property
Mislaid Property
Issue? The issue is: can a voluntarily placed object (mislaid property) in a public place inside of a store be claimed by a customer who first find it ( first in time)
The plaintiff acquired no original rights to the property and the defendants subsequent acts in receiving and holding the property in the manner he did does not create any (rights)
Haslem v. Lockwood: horse manure
The issues : do someone lose their rights to abandoded property if left unattended
Labor in this case was beneficial to society