This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Property Dukeminier Cases


undefined, object
copy deck
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)
RULE: A moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising an comprehensive land-use plan does not constitute a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause.
Mannillo v. Gorski
RULE: To claim title by adverse possession, the possessor need not have been aware that the land in question was in fact owned by another.
Mountain Brow Lodge N. 82 Independent Order of Odd Fellows v Toscano
RULE: A limitation on the use of property although it might serve to impede it's transfer, will not be void as a restraint against alienation.
Mahrenholz v. Cty Bd of School Trustees
RULE: Only where the grantor creates a possibility of reverter will he or his successors become possessory owners of the property immediately upon the breaking of the condition.
Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit (1981)
RULE: Condemnation for public use is permitted, and condemnation for a private use is forbidden. Condemnation for a private use cannot be authorized whatever its incidental public benefit and condemnation for a public purpose cannot be forbidden whatever the incidental private gain.
Keeble v. Hickeringill
RULE: A party may not maliciously interfere with the legal use of the land of another.
VanValkenburgh v. Lutz
RULE: Title to parcel may vest in an adverse possessor who occupies the parcel under claim of right, protects the parcel by an enclosure, improves or cultivates the parcel, and maintains that state of affairs for the statutory period.
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1982)
RULE: Eminent domain can be exercised over intangible property. Because the power to condemn is an inherent attribute of general government, the court observes that constitutional provisions merely place limitations upon its exercise. The two constitutional restraints are that the taking be for a "public use" and that "just compensation" be paid therefore.
Pierson v. Post
RULE: A person who is pursuing a wild animal does not acquire a right to that animal by the mere fact of pursuit; Mere pursuit of wild animal with an intent to capture does not constitute ownership.
Smith v. Chanel
RULE: In the absence of such a monopoly as a patent confers, any persons may reproduce the articles, if they can, and may sell them under the representation that they are the same article, if they exclude the notion that they are the plaintiff's goods.
Gruen v. Gruen
RULE: A valid inter vivos gift of chattel may be made where the donor reserves a life estate and the donee never has physical possession until the donor's death.
Ghen v. Rich
RULE: When someone does all that is possible to secure control over a wild animal, within the recognized custom it becomes property of the securer.
Johnson v. M'Intosh
RULE: The Indians that inhabited the lands did not have the power to convey title. Absolute title rested in the discoverer of the land, not the Indians that used the land.
Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
RULE: If there is a bad faith intent from the beginning by one company to confuse internet users and to hold up another company for the rights to an ip name, then there is a violation of the ACPA.
Newman v. Bost
RULE: A constructive delivery of a gift causa mortis will be effective where it plainly appears that it was the intention of the donor to make the gift, and where the things intended to be given are not present, or, where present, are incapable of manual delivery from their size or weight.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
RULE: A taking must be upheld as consistent with the Public Use Clause as long as it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. The public use clause of the Fifth Amendment does not disallow the exercise of eminent domain power when it is reasonably related to a conceivable public purpose even when it is for private land redistribution. A court may review what a public use is but it must give deference to the legislature's public use determination until it is shown to involve an impossibility. The redistribution of land in an oligopoly is a rational exercise of the eminent domain power. The takings purpose and not the mechanics must pass scrutiny under the Public Use Clause.
Penn Central v. City of New York (1978)
RULE: A city may place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks without effecting a taking requiring just compensation.
Baker v. Weedon
RULE: A court may order the sale of property which is held subject to a future interest, but only if a sale is necessary for the best interests of both the life tenant and the remainderman.
Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp.
RULE: Unless recognized under common law or by some statute, a man's property is limited to the chattels, which embody his invention.
State v. Shack (1971)
RULE: Title to real property does not include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come onto that property.
Hannah v. Peel
RULE: The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all persons except the real owner/
International News Service v. AP
RULE: The process of gathering information creates quasi property rights in that information. The elements of misappropriation are that the plaintiff must have invested time, money, or effort to extract the information, the defendant must have taken the information with no similar investment, and the plaintiff must have suffered a competitive injury because of the taking.
Moore v. Regents of the Univ Of Calif (1991)
RULE: A person whose tissue is used for profitable research and development without his knowledge may not maintain a conversion action thereof.
McAvoy v. Medina
RULE: Misplaced goods (items intentionally placed by the owner where they were found and then forgotten or left there) are deemed to be in the bailment of the owner of the property on which they are found for the true owner.
Howard v. Kunto
RULE: Where several successive purchasers received record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that they were acquiring tract B, immediately contiguous thereto, and where possession of tract B is transferred and occupied in a continuous manner for more than 10 years by successive occupants, there is sufficient privity of estate to permit tacking and thus establish adverse possession as a matter of law.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV (1982)
RULE: Any permanent physical occupation of an owner's property which is governmentally authorized constitutes a taking of property for which just compensation must be paid.
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon (1922)
RULE: Private property may be regulated pursuant to the police power of the state to protect public health, safety or morals; but if such regulation goes so far as to destroy or appropriate a property right, it becomes a "taking" under the Fifth and Fourtheenth Amendments, requiring just compensation thereof.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc (1997)
RULE: Because the property owners' legal right to exclude all others from their land was involved, the court noted that the law recognized that actual harm occurred in every trespass.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
RULE: The state must compensate a landowner when a regulatory action denies an owner economically viable use of his land, unless the prohibited use of the land constitutes a nuisance under state common law.
White v. Brown
RULE: Unless the words and context of a will clearly evidence an intention to convey only a life estate it will be interpreted as conveying a fee estate.
Armory v. Delamirie
RULE: A finder of chattel has title superior to all but the rightful owner upon which he may maintain an action at law or in equity.

Deck Info