Property Law: Case Briefs on encroachment from week 1

The Right to Exclude

ENCROACHMENT

Peters v. Archambault

• Facts: Plaintiff requests that defendant remove their structure covering 9 percent of plaintiff’s land.
• History: Decreed, defendant appealed
• Issue: Can the state issue an injunction to remove a structure that the defendant did not create, yet owns? What is the proper remedy?
• Holding: Yes
• Rationale: Current rule provides no reason for exception; previous exceptions have been de minimis. Injunction is the proper remedy.
• Dissent: Plaintiff was aware of the structure’s placement at time of purchase. The parties are capable of resolving the issue w/out court.  

Somerville v. Jacobs

• Facts: Plaintiff built structure on defendant’s land unknowingly; defendant claimed the structure.
• Issue: Can the court award compensation to an improver when by reasonable mistake he builds a structure on land that isn’t his.
• Holding: Yes
• Result: Reversed and remanded.
• Rationale: Application of principle of unjust enrichment has been applied elsewhere, let’s apply it here also.
• Dissent: Party that made mistake should suffer the consequences.
• Rule: If by reasonable mistake, an improver improves a land they do not own, they are entitled to recover.

Property Law: Case briefs on the trespass from week 1

The Right to Exclude

TRESPASS

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes Inc.

• Facts: Defendant delivered a mobile home across the land of plaintiff, against the express volition of plaintiff.
• History: Trial Court for plaintiff, court overruled and wouldn’t award punitive damages because there were no compensatory damages. Plaintiff appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff appealed again.
• Issue: Were the lower courts correct in not awarding punitive damages because no compensatory damages were also awarded?
• Holding: No
• Rule: Punitive damages may be awarded in the case of intentional trespass as determined by the court.
• Rationale: The right to exclude is a fundamental right and needs to be upheld.

Maguire v. Yanke

• Facts: Defendants cattle broke through defendants pasture fence and destroyed the alfalfa crop of plaintiff.
• History: District court for plaintiff, award actual damages but no punitive damages.
• Issue: Can a livestock owner be held liable for damages caused by his livestock to an unfenced area in an open range?
• Holding: No
• Rationale: Idaho is an open range state, herd districts must be formed or fences built. A pseudo-closed range is not actual legal area.
• Rule: Livestock owner is not liable in an open range area.

Property Law: Case Briefs on fish and wildlife from week 1

Fish and Wildlife

Pierson v. Post

• Facts: Defendant (Pierson) shot fox that plaintiff (Post) was chasing. Defendant claimed the fox.
• Issue: Did Plaintiff claim the fox by pursuing it?
• History: Trial Court ruled for Plaintiff
• Result: For Defendant, reversed.
• Dissent: The court should award the fox to the plaintiff because he was doing a service eliminating the fox, which is a pest.  

Ghen v. Rich

• Facts: Plaintiff shot whale, and lost track of it. Ellis found the whale on the beach some time later and auctioned it. Defendant purchased the whale and processed it.
• Result: For plaintiff.
• Issue: Can the court

Tort Law: Case briefs on assault from week 1

Assault

Western Union Telegraph v. Hill

• Facts: Employee of defendant, Western Union, attempted to touch the wife of plaintiff, Hill, and offered to “fix her clock” in return for sexual favors. Plaintiff had a routine contract for clock repair with defendant.
• History: Trial court for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
• Issue: Did the trial court err in submitting to the jury?  Was there assault that would cause for damages?
• Holding: No, no. Ought to be resubmitted to the jury; employee was acting beyond scope of employment.
• Result: Reversed.
• Rule: Only apprehension of imminent battery is requisite for assault.

MaGuire v. Almy

• Facts: The defendant, who is mentally insane, struck defendant, her caretaker
• Issue: Should the trial court have ruled in favor of the defendant on the grounds that insanity is a defense from battery?
• Holding: No
• Rule: If an insane person is capable of intent, he is liable under the same circumstances as a normal person.

Talmage v. Smith

• Facts: Defendant hit plaintiff with a stick, causing blindness. Defendant had intended the stick to scare or harm a different person.
• History: Trial court for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
• Issue: Is it still battery if the defendant intended the harmful action for a different party, and so harms an unintended party.
• Holding: Yes
• Rule: Transferable tort. If tort was intended for one party, then it’s transferable to another party.

Tort Law: Case briefs on battery from week 1

Battery

Garrat v. Dailey

• Facts- Plaintiff and her sister and the defendant are in the sister’s backyard. The defendant moves and sits in a chair. The plaintiff goes to sit in that same chair. The defendant attempts to push the chair back to catch plaintiff, but fails. Plaintiff falls and suffers $11,000 in damages.
• History: Trial, appeal, s. Court
• Issue: did the defendant act with intent to harm or knowledge? Does this warrant a new trial or judgement?
• Holding: Unclear, and no.
• Rule: Intent to harm or knowledge that action would cause harm is necessary for tort.
• Rationale: Battery requires intent of harm or knowledge of likelihood.

Wagner v. State

• Facts: Giese, a mentally disabled person under supervision of the state, threw plaintiff on the ground.
• Issue: Is intent to harm requisite for battery?
• Holding: No
• Rationale: What about an unpetitioned kiss? That is not harmful, however, it is undesirable.
• Rule: Battery- intent to make harmful or offensive contact.

Wallace v. Rosen

• Facts: Defendant touched/ pushed plaintiff, during fire drill. Plaintiff fell and suffered damages.
• History: Trial court jury ruled for Rosen; Wallace appealled.
• Issue: Did the trial court err in submitting the defendant’s instructions to the jury that battery does not require intent?
• Holding: No
• Rule: Battery must involve intent, in rude, insolent, angry, or harmful manner.
• Result: Affirmed.

Fisher v. Carrousel Mo. Hotel Inc.

• Facts: Employee of defendant snatches plate from plaintiff and shouts, negroes can’t be served here.
• History: Trial court jury gave a verdict for plaintiff, however, judges overruled for defendant. Appellate court affirmed.
• Issue: Did the trial court err in overruling the verdict? Is physical contact necessary for battery?
• Holding: Yes, No.
• Rule: Contact with physical body is not requisite for battery.
• Term: Judgement notwithstanding the verdict.

Tort Law: Case briefs from week 1

Intent

Hulle v. Orynge

• Liability only requires damage, intent is not necessary to prove
• Burden of proof is on defendant

Weaver v. Ward

• Facts: Defendant accidentally shot plaintiff while in military contact.
• Rule: Burden of proof on defendant. Defendant is liable unless utterly not the fault of the defendant.

Brown v. Kendall

• Facts: Defendant hits plaintiff with a stick accidentally while separating a dog fight.
• History: Jury for plaintiff
• Result: Retrial
• Rule: Liability must be based on legal faulty.
• Issue: were the instructions to the jury appropriate?   
• Relevance: began the idea of “contributory negligence”

Cohen v. Petty

• Result: Affirmed
• History: Plaintiff appealed
• Facts: Defendant unexpectedly fainted and drove off the road, launching plaintiffs from the car
• Issue: Was the trial court justified in taking the case from the jury on the grounds that the negligence cannot be proven when unexpected happens.
• Holding: Yes
• Rule: Not chargeable with negligence, when driver becomes sick without anticipation

Spano v. Perini Corp

• Facts: Plaintiff’s property damaged by blasting of defendant, even though physical contact wasn’t made.
• History: Trial Court ruled for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
• issue : Can tort be established without negligence or intent?
• Holding: Yes
• Rule: Absolute liability applies when plaintiff engages in abnormally dangerous behavior.

Contract Law: Important notes from week 1

Important Notes

Types of contracts

• Express contract- standard contract
• Implied in Fact Contract- a contract is suggested by actions from both parties
• Mutual agreement, intent to promise
• Implied in Law Contract- a quazi-contract

Contract law serves at least two functions

• Gap filling- filling in the unspecified details in a contract
• Sorting

Not all contracts are enforced

Sources of contract law include

• Common law
• UCC or State statutory law
• Restatements, which are summarized versions of common law, presented as persuasive authority.

Five Guys hypothetical

Subjective intent (meeting of the minds) vs. Objective intent (explicitly stated)

Which party is the least cost avoider?

Two groups are considered when making a ruling in higher courts

• This group
• Next group

Contract Theroies

• Theories explain why our nation allows the state to enforce contracts

• Autonomy Theory
• The state enforces contracts to protect autonomy
• It is morally imperative to enforce contracts to protect individuals’ freedom to organize their personal affairs and build trust.
• An ex post adjudication theroy focused on resolving disputes between litigants
• Problems
• Suggests all contracts are moral obligations, yet all contracts are not upheld
• It is difficult to argue why contracts are moral obligations
• By extrapolation, the state should enforce all other moral obligations, which would be undesirable.
• Economic Theory
• The state enforces contracts to create good incentives
• An ex ante theory focusing on the future
• Problem
• Doesn’t consider the past and fairness

• Pluralist Theory
• The state enforces contracts to protect autonomy, to provide incentives, and to maintain fairness
• Fairness is to protect the party least able to defend itself
• Is an advertisement a contract?