The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
Vidal Gomez et al. v. D.A. Dykes et al. (1961)
- Facts: Gomez bought ranch from Dykes and there is dispute over certain real and personal properties
- Issue: dispute over the removal of a clodbuster, a trailer, and manure.
- Holding: district court ruled in favor of the defendant
- Rationale: clodbuster is personal property, the trailer is neither the plaintiff's or defendant so it is left in limbo. If the cattle ate off the land then they have a responsibility to replenish the land with their manure. The cattle was not fed off the land so the owners of the cattle own the maure and it is personal property. AFFIRMED.
- anything that does not fall under real property
- movable things
- ideas recieve intellectual property
- real estate, realty, or immovable property
- the land and everything permanently affixed
- as soon as seeds hit the ground they are real property until cut and are personal property
Georgia Simos Raftopolous v. Ben Monger (1983)
- Facts: Raftoplolous is the legal owner of the disputed 120 acress that Monger has used for over fifty years.
- Issue: Whether Monger has the right to adverse possession.
- Holding: The district court gave adverse possession to the defendant.
- Rationale: Monger fenced in area but it wasn't sheep tight. Monger had seen plaintiffs sheep on the land before. The plaintiff grazed sheep anually on the 120 acres. The plaintiff and defendant had joint use making it not exclusive or uniteruppted by the plaintiff disallowing adverse possession. Also, the plaintiff had paid taxes on the land for all those years and is the legal title owner. REVERSED.
- a common law or statuatory rule that allows a person who occupies someone else's land for a specified period of time, openly and without permission, and claiming it as his/her own, to bring a lawsuit to have himself or herself declared the legal owner.
- land needs to be actual, adverse, hostile, exclusive and uninteruppted
In re Estate of Fiore (1984)
- Facts: Charles DiPrima Jr. and Leonard Fiore had a joint bank account. DiPrima murdered Fiore.
- Issue: Whether the apellant has rights to the money in the bank accounts.
- Holding: Referee found that DiPrima is not entitled to share any funds on deposit in the joint and survivorship bank account. The lowe court Affirmed these findings.
- Rationale: Court pays attention to the conviction not the plea. A person convicted of murder shall not benefit in anyway from the death. The money and property will be passed off as if the guilty had predeceased the descendants. Preventing a murderer from benefitting from his wrong is reasonable and bears a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and morals. AFFIRMED.
What are the three ways of ownership?
- 1) joint tendency: whoever lives longer gets property and/or money
- right of survivorship
- 2) tenants in common: business partners; family of decedent will get money and or property
- can sell share
- 3) tenants by the entirety: married; who lives longer get property and/or money
Jean Loretto, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al. (1982)
- Facts: Appelant bought a five story apartment building in NYC. Previous owner allowed CATV cable. Landlords used to get 5% back but under the new law they get $1.
- Issue: Whether a minor but permanent occupation of an owner's property authorized by government constitutes a "taking" of property for which just compensation is due.
- Holding: The NYS Supreme Court granted summmary judgment to Teleprompter and city becasue they did not take appellants property.
- Rationale: The permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the general interests(Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NYC (1978)) It violates the Takings Clause. The court determined that crossover and noncrossover installations are both a taking. The Court concluded that we have a right to our own property and have protection from the government from taking property without just compensation. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated
- a class action lawsuit
- a group of people
implies the right to possession and control of that which is owned
- the state of having dominion and control over property
- actual: direct physical control of the property
- constructive: no direct physical control, but remains right to direct the use and disposition of the property
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Ruth E. Oscar and Charles Spinosa v. University Students Cooperative Associations et al.
- Facts: Barrington Hall of Berkely was accused of being involved with massive drug law violations and therefore turned the neighborhood into a drug enterprise zone. This interfered with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of their property.
- Issue: Whether the plaintiffs have alleged an injury to "business or property" that will support a RICO claim.
- Findings: The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs didn't actually own the property, RICO only cover businesses, and the plaintiffs can only use personal injury and not RICO.
- Conclusion: The Court says that the loss is economic because of the diminuation of the fair market value(loss of property value). The plaintiff successfully pleaded an injury to business or property. Under RICO, the defendants are liable for the harm inflicted by reason of the racketeering activity. CAUSATION ADEQUATELY PLEADED. can go ahead with trial in district court and can sue using RICO.
- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
- persons injured in their "business or property" by a pattern of racketeering activity can recover treble damages and the cost of the suit includinf attorney's fees.
- RICO was passed to go after organized crime such as the Mafia
Joel Rose et ux. v. Joseph Chaikin et ux. (1982)
- Facts: Defendant erected a 60 foot windmill in their residential neighborhood of Brigantine, New Jersey. Plaintiffs complained about noise and the stress is cauased them.
- Issue: Whether the windmill is a private nuisance and if it violates local zoning laws.
- Findings: The high niose levels were above the 50dBA limit of the city ordinace. The noise causes stress related symptoms. The private nuisance is not natural and is unreasonable. Defendants claim noise can't constitute a private nuisance- it can if it cases injury to health and if it is unreasonable(look at character, volume, frequency, duration, time), that it doesn't exceed dBA limit, and that it does not warrant the extraordinary relief" of an injunction.
- Conclusion: The social utility of the windmill is outweighed by the quantum of harm it creates. There are other alternatives to wind energy to cut back on energy bill and conserve energy. The windmill creates an actionable nuisance and violates the municipal zoning ordinance.
- a use of land that substantially interferes with another party's right to use and enjoy his/her land
- can be public (zoning laws; town or city takes care of court proceedings) or private (nuisance action; more control in court proceedings)
- zoning laws may take the place of nuisance
Jo Campbell v. City of Champaign (1991)
- Facts: Campbell was hired by the City of Champaign to be the city's record manager. Was fired for being rude to other employees.
- Issue: Whether the employment manual of the City of Champaign could fairly be interpreted as promising the plaintiff that her job was secure as long as she didn't misbehave.
- Holding: The district court granted summary judgment for the city and other defendants.
- Rationale: At-will employees cannot be though as to have entitlement. Only those with tenure or contracts aren't at-will employees. Hanbooks with promisory language form a contract and when a person reads the handbook and works afterwards creates a legally enforceable contract. This handbook doesn't create a contract because not all handbooks create a property right. Campbell served at the pleasure of the City Manager and therefore has no tenure or job security. Deprivation of property must be a job not disciplinary procedures. AFFIRMED.
- the extent of a persons or entity's rights in property
- percentage of ownership
- time period of ownership
- right of survivorship
- rights to transfer or encumber property
An interest in a government benefit that cannot be taken away without due process of law. Thus, an entitlement is a form of property.
sina qua non
something absolutely indispensable or essential
- nobody should live below a certain poverty line because America is so wealthy
- power in the United States comes from the government (it used to come from the amount of land one had)
- both parties liked Reight and supported his ideals