CHAPTER ONE: COMPETING CLAIMS TO ORIGINAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
CONQUEST
· Johnson v. McIntosh (PG 4)
o Johnson bought land from Natives, McIntosh granted land patent by gov. Ct. found tribes do not have power of conveying absolute title of their lands to others. Ct. put aside proclamation of 1763, asserted discovery doctrine (discovery = absolute title), natives were conquered. Aboriginal title, right of preemption.
o RULE: Courts do not recognize property transactions on Indian territory, ensures that the title must come from the US.
POSSESSION: ANIMALS
· Pierson v. Post (PG 76)
o Fox hunter (post) chasing through public lands when Pierson killed fox.
o RULE: Pursuit of an animal doesn’t equal possession. (role of labor in ownership)
· Popov v. Hayashi (PG 79)
o Popov caught baseball, tackled by crowd, thrown up, caught by Hayashi. Ball sold and divided evenly. Popov would have achieved possession but for unlawful acts of others, but Hayashi didn’t do anything wrong, unfair to deprive him.
POSSESSION: OIL AND GAS
· Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. (PG 83)
o P owner surface and royalties in oil/gas, land overlaid 50% of reservoir. D drilling east of P’s land, caused well to blow out, drained large amount of gas from P’s land. Ct. held P didn’t lose right when gas migrated, wasn’t legitimate drainage or reasonable appropriation.
o RULE:
§ Law of Capture – Owner of tract of land acquires title to oil/gas which migrates onto his property – as a result of reasonable production.
· No liability for reasonable/legitimate drainage from common pool
· Immunity doesn’t extend to the negligent waste/destruction of oil/gas
§ Correlative Rights Doctrine – owner has right to fair/equitable share of oil/gas under land and protection from negligent damage to producing formation
POSSESSION: WATER
· Winters v. United States (HANDOUT)
o Winters wanted court to declare that their water rights had priority of Natives. Ct. held that Congress implied a guarantee when creating reservation for reasonable amount of water. Didn‘t terminate, as it would destroy reservation, make land useless.
o RULE:
§ Appropriation Doctrine – those who get it first own it
§ Winters Doctrine – water was impliedly reserved for tribal use whenever lands were set aside as reservations, implied reserved right to amount of water necessary to effectively pursue the purposes of the reservation
§ United States v. Winans – when interpreting ambiguities in agreements/treaties between US and Native Americans, decisions must be made in favor of Natives
§ Later, Arizona v. California – enough water to irrigate all the lands on the reservation that are capable of sustaining irrigation
POSSESSION: FINDERS
· Charrier v. Bell (PG 92)
o P was archeologist, got permission from caretaker, not owner, to excavate land. Excavated 150 burial sites, tired to sell. Items belonged to tribe, not abandoned (intentionally buried and intended to stay with the land), no unjust enrichment.
o RULE: Abandoned (left behind intentionally, permanently, no intent to return), Mislaid (left unattended w/ intent to return), Lost (involuntary part neglect/ carelessness)
§ Unjust Enrichment: Requires 1) enrichment, 2) impoverishment, 3) connection between 1&2, 4) no cause or justification for 1&2, 5) no other remedy available
§ Washington Law: W/in 7 days report, surrender, show where found. Becomes yours after 60 days if properly reported and no owner found
CHAPTER TWO: TRESPASS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PROPERTY
TRESPASS: PUBLIC POLICY LIMITS ON RIGHT TO EXCLUDE
· State v. Shack (PG104)
o D working for 2 non-profit gov. subsidized organ. – provide legal/medical aid to seasonal farm workers. D went to P’s farm to provide services. P stopped and told them only provide legal advice in his office and presence. D refused, trespass. Not trespass.
o RULE: Property rights not absolute, cannot include dominion over destiny of persons owner permits to come upon premises. P has right to keep work free from disruption, but had no right to isolate or keep them from things essential to health/welfare/dignity.
· Desnick v. American Broadcasting Companies (PG 108)
o D called P doing program on cataract practice – wanted permission to bring in camera crew, program fair/balanced. D sent in undercover patients, aired show that suggested P recommending surgery to older people that didn’t need. No trespass – open to public.
o RULE: Entry is legal, even if entrant has intentions, if revealed, would revoke consent
TRESPASS: RIGHT OF REASONABLE ACCESS TO PROPERTY
· Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. (PG 116)
o D excluded plaintiff from blackjack tables because P expert card counter. Ct. held that can’t exclude. P didn’t interfere w/ regular functioning, right of reasonable access.
o RULE: When premises open to general public, can’t exclude unreasonably. Can only exclude those who disrupt regular/essential operations of premises.
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAW: RACE/SEX/ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
· Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II (PG 124)
o Applies to race/color/national origin/religion
o Applies to places of public accommodation – those that “affects interstate commerce” or is supported by state action (most say that list is exclusive)
o Shall not apply to private club, not in fact open to the public
o Passed at time when most assumed 1886 applied only to state action
· Civil Rights Act of 1886 (PG 125) – 1981 and 1982
o Section 1981 (right to make/enforce contracts) applies to race only
o Applies to government and private conduct
o Section 1982 applies to purely private actions
o Both sections permit damages award
o Right to contract may apply beyond entities listed
FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY: CONSTITUTION 1ST AMEND
· Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (PG 153)
o Privately owned shopping center, groups handing out info to protest war, customer complained, suggest leave. Ct. held shopping center could prohibit distribution on property, as long as it was unrelated to shopping center operations. As it was not a public business district or municipality.
o RULE: Property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use It for its designated purpose (reserve right to refuse entry)
§ Free speech access isn’t required by the 1st amendment or prohibited by the 14th amendment. States choose owners prop rights v. free speech
· Matthews v. Bay Head (PG
ch anyone can defend himself, even at cost of injury to others
§ CIVIL RULE – (NATURAL FLOW) Absolute liability imposed for damage caused by an owner’s artificial alteration of flow patterns that cause harm.
§ WATER RIGHTS (REASONABLE USE TEST) – balance social benefit derived from development of D’s prop, availability of cost effective means to avoid/mitigate harm, and gravity of harm to P’s prop
CHAPTER FOUR: NUISANCE, RULES GOVERNING NEIGHBOR RELATIONS IN ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT
SUPPORT EASEMENTS: SUBJACENT SUPPORT
· Friendswood v. Smith (PG 251)
o Pumping out of water by D caused P’s land to subsidence. Ct. held that not this case, but from now on landowners who w/d water are liable for subsidence of others land.
o RULE: Created new duty to produce water from his land in a manner that will not negligently damage or destroy lands of another (wasteful/negligent/malicious)
§ LATERAL SUPPORT RULES: Strict liability for failure to support neighbor’s land in natural state; liable for consequential harm to buildings too.
· OLD RULE: No liability if buildings fall when lateral support necessary for added weight of building removed
· NEW RULE: Liability for buildings if lateral support for neighbor’s land is removed negligently
NUISANCE
· The substantial interference w/ the use/enjoyment of the land.
· Elements: Intentional conduct resulting in substantial and unreasonable harm, evaluate harm required to bear, conduct, and consequences
o Compare social value of D conduct compared to detriment suffered by P, unreasonable if more harm than good. Does harm outweigh value?
o Also look at defendant’s conduct, it’s social value, suitability to the area, practicability of avoiding harm
· Used when no special regulations have been created (flexible)
· Physically offensive to the senses (makes like uncomfortable)
o Permanent (irreparable injuries), Temporary (alleviated by changes)
· Strict liability for “ultra hazardous materials
· Distinguish:
o Trespass – intentional invasion of P interest in exclusive possession, direct v. indirect
o Negligence – prohibits unreasonable conduct, nuisance focuses on result
· Page County Appliance Center v. Honeywell (PG273)
o P appliance center, D neighbor, travel agency (ITT) and computer manufacturer (Honey). H installed comp that leaked radiation, affected picture quality in P’s TV’s. Ct. found not hypersensitive, presence of TV normal condition. Held those responsible liable and material participation in design.
o RULE: Nuisance doesn’t focus on action, but condition. Those responsible for con liable.
