Theory Flashcards
post M’Intosh native property rights
M’Intosh still law – Indian lands held in trust by secretary of state, need gvt permission to buy or sell
3 kinds of remedies
damages injunctive declaratory relief
soveirgn authority–examples
1) Johnson v. M’Intosh – conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny, and title must depend on laws of nation it’s in 2) Lobato v. Taylor: to what extent, if any, do US laws have to give respect to laws of past soveirgns? 3) eminent domain, takings
Matthew v. Bay Head Improvement Association
F: quasi-public NJ nonprofit limits access to dry sand H: public has right to enjoy tidal lands, this extends to right to gain access through dry sand owned not just by a municipality, but a quasi-public body (policy). Must open assn membership N: dn reach issue of fully private lands but leaves door open that may be nec in future “to satisfy the public need”
current state of human-body-as-property law
usu ok compensate for fully renewable body resource (sperm, hair, eggs…)
Popov v. Hyashi
F: P began to catch record baseball in upper web of glove but dnh absolute dominion or control, interrupted by attacking mob. D gets from ground H: both have ownership (P prepossessory interest) and H actual
constructive delivery of a gift (ex)
eg of key to locked box
F: quasi-public NJ nonprofit limits access to dry sand H: public has right to enjoy tidal lands, this extends to right to gain access through dry sand owned not just by a municipality, but a quasi-public body (policy). Must open assn membership N: dn reach issue of fully private lands but leaves door open that may be nec in future “to satisfy the public need”
Matthew v. Bay Head Improvement Association
3 types of remedies
damages injunctive declaratory judgment
efficiency–examples
1) nuisance: what’s greatest economic and social welfare for everyone? 2) AP: increases alienability bc less uncertain who owns it AND the person who values it most gets it AND the person who gets it will put it to most productive use 3) divisible easements – encourages land use and transferability
H: P did not, by mere pursuit, acquire property interest in fox. Would need seizure, mortal wounding, deprive of liberty
Pierson v. Post
Pierson v. Post
H: P did not, by mere pursuit, acquire property interest in fox. Would need seizure, mortal wounding, deprive of liberty
distributive justice–examples
1) pro implied easements – parties may be bargaining from unequal positions (like landlocked) or not know they need an easement or how to write one 2) present estates/future interests can be bad bc feudalism (concentrate all land w a few), or bad bc ppl dnk how write wills so then everything gets really iluted 3) Robinson v. Diamond majority – you can’t get away w retaliatory eviction by saying you’re going out of business (and similarly, LLT IWH etc help poor ppl)
case where Spanish citizens kept title to properties in FL
US v. Percheman
legal requirements for gifts
–present intent to transfer title –delivery (physical or constructive) –acceptance
Labor and investment - examples
1) professional license minority view 2) IP (labor of your idea) 3) copyright: focus is on originality (not labor/investment) BUT you mixed yourself into that originality
unborn spouse trap
ex: O to A for life, then to A’s widow for life, then 5 years later to B+heirs A is measuring life (controls when there’s a widow) A’s interest dn violate bc by the time A dies we’ll know who the widow is but B’s interest does…how long will the widow live? what if that widow dies and he marries someone else?
public trust doctrine: def
the beaches (or at least the waters) are for everyone
is sperm property?
wasn’t in recent unpublished case – “all my property” to my kids, but fiancee got sperm
justifications for property rights (5)
1) first possession 2) labor and investment 3) efficiency 4) distributive justice 5) soveirgn authority
F: P began to catch record baseball in upper web of glove but dnh absolute dominion or control, interrupted by attacking mob. D gets from ground H: both have ownership (P prepossessory interest) and H actual
Popov v. Hyashi
law of capture
oil drilling: oil migrates and belongs to whoever takes it out. (bc each owner has equal opportunity to develop)
First possession – examples (1)
Johnson v. M’Intosh (but Europeans need to possess – contrast US v. Percheman in FL)
possible justifications for property rights (5)
first possession labor and investment (inc “mixing”) efficiency distributive justice soveirgn authority
Eliff v. Texon Drilling Co.
F: P owned oil rights for reservoir, their oil flowed to neighbors side and then was destroyed by D’s negligence H: law of capture doesn’t absolve D of negligence liability…
autonomy – examples
1) any restraint on alienability –limits autonomy of future owners while encouraging autonomy of current owners (RAP tries to balance) 2) outster – are courts interfering w autonomy by protecting the victim spouse? (taken to extreme, interferes w no-faut divorce), and more broadly, letting ppl get divorced w/o encumbrances 3) Robinson v. Diamond dissent – unfair to not let LL go out of business
F: Ds took blood and made T cell line, P says it’s still his property bc his body H: P dn retain ownership interest in blood after removed from his body (statute)
Moore v. Regents of UC
F: ppl who bought land from tribe directly vs. ppl who bought from US gvt (who had gotten from tribe by treaty) H: –US gvt will not recognize title of lands sold by Indians to individuals. –Natives keep occupancy (legal right) bc –US gvt has exclusive right to acquire lands from Indian nations –Soveirgnty justification–courts bound by principles of own nation –Discovery/conquest –Indians dn own property by European standards and can’t be incorporated into our society
Johnson v. M’Intosh (6 pt Holding)
goals/policy (3)
1) autonomy 2) social customs 3) secure expectations
Pierson v. Post dissent
–social customs (decide by the arbiter of sportsmen) –good for society: foxes are bad for society so must incentivize killing them
Johnson v. M’Intosh (6 pt Holding)
F: ppl who bought land from tribe directly vs. ppl who bought from US gvt (who had gotten from tribe by treaty) H: –US gvt will not recognize title of lands sold by Indians to individuals. –Natives keep occupancy (legal right) bc –US gvt has exclusive right to acquire lands from Indian nations –Soveirgnty justification–courts bound by principles of own nation –Discovery/conquest –Indians dn own property by European standards and can’t be incorporated into our society
bundle of sticks (7)
give/sell, divide, exclude, limit, possess, enjoy fruits/profits, destroy
public trust doctrine: current status
SC has given it to the states some states: swimming/sunbathing/sand all part of it other states: very limited – just fishing sometimes addressed through prescription/easements or custom of access
gifts revocable? (W)
no – not even for engagement rings
secure expectations – examples
1) nuisance: tension btwn protecting legit rights of nonowners (who had expectations) and of owners (who also had expecations 2) HOAs/condos/covenants – shouldn’t be too much limitations bc protect expectations of ppl who bought in reliance 3) LL duty to mitigate bad bc he bargained for right to not have to look for a new tenant during this term
social customs – ex (1)
Pierson v. Post dissent – decide according to the laws of sport
F: P owned oil rights for reservoir, their oil flowed to neighbors side and then was destroyed by D’s negligence H: law of capture doesn’t absolve D of negligence liability…
Eliff v. Texon Drilling Co.
“efficiency” def
max economic outcomes AND max social welfare
Moore v. Regents of UC
F: Ds took blood and made T cell line, P says it’s still his property bc his body H: P dn retain ownership interest in blood after removed from his body (statute)
