Stephen Marsalis Law 573 6/13/17 - Jul 3-4 No class – July 5 No class – July 28 Last day of class – July 31 Final Exam - TA Session 12:15pm Wednesday 6/14 - Part I – Fundamentals of Property - Part II – System of Estates - Part III – Leases (Landlord/Tenant) - Part IV – Transfer of Land - Part V – Land Use Controls - The Case Method: Pros and Cons - Cause of action – In Tucker case, the cause of action is replevin - Two types of law – (1) Enacted law (Constitutional, Legislative, Administrative, etc.) & (2) Common law (judge made law) - Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 3 and Rule 8 - State court jurisdiction: General jurisdiction - Federal court jurisdiction: Limited Jurisdiction – Federal Question – Diversity of citizenship 6/14/17 - Case of First Impression – A case without prior precedent. - TA Session 1 - Law School Expectations – Preparation (read the case, brief it, cold-calling, and outlining) - Law school requires self-learning - CREAC vs IRAC - CREAC best for Papers - IRAC best for Exams - Conclusion - Issue - Rule - Rule - Examples - Analysis - Analysis - Conclusion - Conclusion - Law School and Life - The Good (friends, professors, etc.) - The Bad (the curve, the sacrifices) - The Ugly (Stress, drama) 6/15/17 - Post v Pierson – Conversion (1) Right in the property of the plaintiff and (2) wrongfully in possession of? - Post seeks the value of the pelt. - (1) Pursuit in certain cases can be sufficient to establish possession (2) Actual possession - Justification – reduce litigation, give certainty in the law. - Livingston’s definition of possession – Pursuit with obvious intent to kill (because of labor, get rid of the nuisance of foxes, etc.). - Popov v Hayashi – Popov argues stopping the ball’s momentum is enough to establish possession. Hayashi argues possession means actual possession. 6/16/17 - Property as a thing? - Property as “rights among people concerning things.” - The “Bundle of Sticks” – Right to transfer, Right to exclude, Right to use, Right to destroy. - Consequences of Rights-based property approach – Rights must be recognized by the state, not absolute, etc. - “Alienability” – Ability to transfer property. - Examples of common law limitations on right to exclude – Consent and necessity. - Trespass – Any intentional (i.e. intent to be where you are, not intent to trespass) and unprivileged entry onto land in possession of another. Damage is not an element of trespass. - Right to Exclude is one of the most fundamental rights in property and must be protected. - Right to Use – Hypothetical 2 – The issue here is whether Johnny Knoxville’s fence constitutes a nuisance to Steve-O. Under the rule established by Sundowner Inc. v King, an owner may not build something for the sole purpose of injuring his neighbor. The structure must serve an actual purpose. In this case, Johnny says he has built the 30 foot fence to keep the sun away and allow him to sleep late. Nevertheless, he built the fence to keep him from having to see Steve-O and his tomatoes. Steve-O has an interest in being able to grow tomatoes in his yard. Johnny cannot build a 30 foot fence which serves little other purpose than to annoy his neighbor and thus acts as a spite fence (nuisance). In conclusion, Steve-O can bring a legal claim against Johnny because Steve-O has an interest in preserving his tomato plants from a fence which serves as a nuisance.
