T
T
T

Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices

Singer
4th Edition
ISBN: 0735524920
Page Case Name Citation Court Audio
4 Johnson v. M'Intosh 21 U.S. 543 Supreme Court of the United States, 1823 Download
15 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States 348 U.S. 272 Supreme Court of the United States, 1955 Download
35 International News Service v. Associated Press 248 U.S. 215 Supreme Court of the United States, 1918 Download
48 Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp. 35 F.2d 279 Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1929 Download
51 Moore v. Regents of the University of California 793 P.2d 479 Supreme Court of California, 1990
60 Upton v. JWP Businessland 682 N.E.2d 1357 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1997 Download
63 Babbitt v. Youpee 519 U.S. 234 Supreme Court of the United States, 1997 Download
72 In re Marriage of King 700 P.2d 591 Supreme Court of Montana, 1985 Download
78 Pierson v. Post 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 Supreme Court of New York Download
82 Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co. 210 S.W.2d 558 Supreme Court of Texas, 1948 Download
92 Charrier v. Bell 496 So. 2d 601 Louisiana Appellate Court, 1986 Download
99 Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs 52 Va. (11 Gratt.) 172 Supreme Court of Virginia, 1854 Download
106 State v. Shack 277 A.2d 369 Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971 Download
111 Desnick v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. 44 F.3d 1345 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1995 Download
119 Uston v. Resorts International Hotels, Inc. 445 A.2d 370 New Jersey District Court, 1982 Download
447 Sanborn v. McLean 206 N.W. 496 Supreme Court of Michigan, 1925 Download
1058 Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment 410 A.2d 1138 Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980
Case Information Fact Summary Rule of Law
Johnson v. M'Intosh
Supreme Court of the United States, 1823
21 U.S. 543
Pg. 4 		Two competing claims of right to the same land. One was bought from Indian Tribes, the other was purchased from the U.S. Government. The Sovereign U.S. Government honors only titles bestowed upon citizens from the U.S. It does not honor land title bestowed upon citizens by Indian tribes.
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States, 1955
348 U.S. 272
Pg. 15 		The United States took timber in Alaska from lands allegedly belonging to the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians. "...Indian occupation of land without government recognition of ownership creates no rights against taking or extinction by the United States protected by the Fifth Amendment or any other principle of law."
International News Service v. Associated Press
Supreme Court of the United States, 1918
248 U.S. 215
Pg. 35 		AP (plaintiff) and INS (defendant) are competitors in the collection and dissemination of the news. AP posts its news on a public bulletin board before publication. INS, bursting with entrepreneurial spirit, begins to take this information from the public bulletin board, incorporating it into its own publications for profit. "Quasi-property rights" may be invoked to protect against unfair competition by competitors, even when the commodity in question is not "owned" by anyone (like the news). More specifically, when the news has commercial value, it becomes "quasi-property."
Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1929
35 F.2d 279
Pg. 48 		Cheney Brothers (plaintiff) designs silk patterns. Very few are very successful, and the rare successes have a short life span (for fashion is fickle). Doris Silk (defendant) copies the successful designs and undercuts Cheney Brothers' prices. Absent a patent or protection under statute, a company's property interest in its product is valid only for the products it creates. "Others may imitate these at their pleasure."
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Supreme Court of California, 1990
793 P.2d 479
Pg. 51 		Doctors operating on Moore's spleen removed some cancerous cells that later were capable of producing proteins that impacted the immune system. The cells ended up having a tremendous amount of commercial value. Moore claimed a conversion cause of action in that the doctors deprived him of his use of the cells. That claimed failed, but Moore won on a breach of fiduciary duty to disclose, because the doctors didn't tell him what they intended to do with his cells. Labor and ingenuity, such as the manipulation of a cell line, can spawn property rights.
Upton v. JWP Businessland
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1997
682 N.E.2d 1357
Pg. 60 		Plaintiff was a single mother who was discharged because she couldn't afford to work long hours because she needed to be wither her son. Although the Court does award property rights to some kinds of labor (see Moore v. Regents of California), the Court does not award domestic labor with property rights.
Babbitt v. Youpee
Supreme Court of the United States, 1997
519 U.S. 234
Pg. 63 		Congress passed a law that small parcels of land could not be devised, but would escheat to the tribe. People generally have a right to direct property at their death. Acts of Congress that infringe upon this right are contrary to the Fifth Amendment.
In re Marriage of King
Supreme Court of Montana, 1985
700 P.2d 591
Pg. 72 		As part of divorce, ex-wife was awarded family home. In Montana, child support considerations may be taken into account in an equitable distribution of property; if husband is unable to support the family, wife may be given a larger share of marital property to offset her increased financial obligation.
Pierson v. Post
Supreme Court of New York
3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264
Pg. 78 		Plaintiff Post pursued a fox on uninhabited land. Even though Defendant Post knew Plaintiff was hunting the fox, he killed it and took it first. Plaintiff sued Defendant claiming that he had already laid claim by virtue of his chasing the fox first. Mere hunting an animal doesn't vest title. One must mortally wound, physically capture, or kill the animal in order to have his title in it vest.
Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co.
Supreme Court of Texas, 1948
210 S.W.2d 558
Pg. 82 		Blow out of wells caused waste of oil and gas and damage to water wells and cattle belonging to petitioner. The negligent destruction and waste of a person's gas and oil will permit that person's recovery because he has been deprived of his rights in property.
Charrier v. Bell
Louisiana Appellate Court, 1986
496 So. 2d 601
Pg. 92 		Plaintiff, an amateur archeologist, requested permission from someone (who he mistakenly thought was the landowner) to excavate land. He later found out the man was the caretaker and not the owner after he located Indian artifacts. Plaintiff searched for buyers. One of the buyers, Dr. Brain, was concerned about ownership and sought declaratory relief as to ownership. State of Louisiana intervened and bought plantation and artifacts. Trial judge found that Tunica-Biloxi tribe was rightful owner and not Plaintiff. Burial ground items are not abandoned, because they are intentionally buried and are intended to stay with the land.
Tapscott v. Lessee of Cobbs
Supreme Court of Virginia, 1854
52 Va. (11 Gratt.) 172
Pg. 99 		Man moved onto unoccupied piece of land without any title. The heirs of the deceased owner brought an ejectment action against him. Neither of the parties are the true owner. When a dispute arises, and neither of the parties are the true owner, the land goes to the first possessor.
State v. Shack
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971
277 A.2d 369
Pg. 106 		Tedesco, a farmer, employed migrant farm workers. Tejeras, a field worker for a nonprofit corporation that helps migrant farmers and Shack, an attorney for a nonprofit that helps migrant farm workers, entered Tedesco's land to provide services to migrant farmers, who were housed on Tedesco's land. Tedesco approached them, he offered to locate a man, who was to have sutures removed, and offered to find the man that Shack wanted to legally advise so long as the legal consultation took place in his office. The men refused and insisted that they provide their services to the men in the privacy of the migrant workers' living quarters without Tedesco's supervision. Tedesco filed a complaint for trespass. Individual and societal interests may sometimes trump property interests. "Property rights serve human values. They are recognized to that end, and are limited by it. Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises. Their well-being must remain the paramount concern of a system of law. Indeed the needs of the occupants may be so imperative and their strength so weak, that the law will deny the occupants the power to contract away what is deemed essential to their health, welfare, or dignity."
Desnick v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1995
44 F.3d 1345
Pg. 111 		ABC's Primetime Live sent undercover reporters to an ophthalmic office to see Drs. who were allegedly recommending cataract surgery unnecessarily. Entry that is consensual, even if obtained fraudulently, is not a trespass.
Uston v. Resorts International Hotels, Inc.
New Jersey District Court, 1982
445 A.2d 370
Pg. 119 		"[A]ppellant Resorts International Hotel, Inc. (Resorts) has excluded respondent, Kenneth Uston, from the blackjack tables in its casino because Uston's strategy increases his chances of winning money. Uston concedes that his strategy of card counting can tilt the odds in his favor under the current blackjack rules promulgated by the Casino Control Commission (Commission). However, Uston contends that Resorts has no common law or statutory right to exclude him because of his strategy for playing blackjack." Property owners have the right to "exclude from their premises those whose actions 'disrupt the regular and essential operations of the [premises],' . . . or threaten the security of the premises and its occupants. . . . In some circumstances, proprietors have a duty to remove disorderly or otherwise dangerous persons from the premises. . . . These common law principles enable the casino to bar from its entire facility, for instance, the disorderly, the intoxicated, and the repetitive petty offender." The Court goes on to hold that in this case, "Respondent Uston does not threaten the security of any casino occupant. Nor has he disrupted the functioning of any casino operations. Absent a valid contrary rule by the Commission, Uston possesses the usual right of reasonable access to Resorts International's blackjack tables."
Sanborn v. McLean
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1925
206 N.W. 496
Pg. 447 		Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in a residential community that has restrictions place upon a majority of the lots. Defendants attempted to build a gas station on their non-restricted lot. Plaintiffs sued attempting to block the construction of the gas station. If the owner of two or more lots, so situated as to bear the relation, sells one with restrictions of benefit to the land retained, the servitude becomes mutual, and, during the period of restraint, the owner of the lot or lots retained can do nothing forbidden to the owner of the lot sold.
Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980
410 A.2d 1138
Pg. 1058 		Plaintiffs owned property subject to a zoning ordinance. Plaintiffs sought to construct a residence on the property and sought a variance from the zoning ordinance because the property did not meet either the frontage or the minimum square footage requirements. Defendant zoning board denied plaintiffs request. Plaintiffs sued. "Undue hardship" involves the underlying notion that no effective use can be made of the property in the event the variance is denied. When the regulation renders the property unusable for any purpose, the analysis calls for further inquiries which may lead to a conclusion that the property owner would suffer an undue hardship.