Case Library
Property case briefs
33 briefs in 13 topics. Each one gives the facts, issue and holding, IRAC and CREAC versions, key quotes with pinpoint pages and the citation in the book’s form.
The right to exclude
The right to exclude on its own pageJacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 154 (Wis. 1997).
May an award of nominal damages for intentional trespass to land support an award of punitive damages?
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Acquisition by possession
Acquisition by possession on its own pageGhen v. Rich
Ghen v. Rich, 8 F. 159 (D. Mass. 1881).
Is the Cape Cod usage, under which the person who kills a whale with a bomb-lance owns it, valid against a finder who did not know who killed the whale?
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Acquisition by creation
Acquisition by creation on its own pageCheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp.
Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp., 35 F.2d 279 (2d Cir. 1929).
Without a patent, a copyright or any other recognized right, can a silk maker stop a competitor, charged with knowledge, from copying its designs during the season for which it seeks protection?
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Finders and gifts
Finders and gifts on its own pageGruen v. Gruen
Gruen v. Gruen, 496 N.E.2d 869 (N.Y. 1986).
May a donor make a valid inter vivas gift of a chattel while reserving a life estate in it, when the donee never had physical possession of the chattel before the donor's death?
New York Court of Appeals
Adverse possession
Adverse possession on its own pageVan Valkenburgh v. Lutz
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 106 N.E.2d 28 (N.Y. 1952).
Did the proof show that Lutz actually occupied the disputed lots by cultivation or improvement sufficient to satisfy the Civil Practice Act?
New York Court of Appeals
Mannillo v. Gorski
Mannillo v. Gorski, 255 A.2d 258 (N.J. 1969).
Does an entry on land, and continued possession, under a mistaken belief that the possessor owns it meet the hostility requirement for title by adverse possession?
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Howard v. Kunto
Howard v. Kunto, 477 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970).
Is a claim of adverse possession defeated because the physical use of the property is limited to summer occupancy?
Washington Court of Appeals
Estates and future interests
Estates and future interests on its own pageBaker v. Weedon
Baker v. Weedon, 262 So. 2d 641 (Miss. 1972).
Does a chancery court have power to order a sale of land that is subject to a life estate and contingent remainders, and to invest the proceeds?
Mississippi Supreme Court
Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees of Lawrence County
Mahrenholz v. Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Trs., 417 N.E.2d 138 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).
Did the 1941 deed to the school trustees create a fee simple determinable followed by a possibility of reverter, or a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent followed by a right of entry for condition broken?
Illinois Appellate Court
Concurrent ownership
Concurrent ownership on its own pageRiddle v. Harmon
Riddle v. Harmon, 102 Cal. App. 3d 524 (1980).
Can a joint tenant unilaterally end a joint tenancy by a deed conveying her interest from herself as joint tenant to herself as tenant in common, or must she convey through a third-party intermediary, called a strawman?
Court of Appeal of the State of California
Harms v. Sprague
Harms v. Sprague, 473 N.E.2d 930 (Ill. 1984).
Is a joint tenancy severed when one joint tenant mortgages his interest in the property without the other joint tenants?
Illinois Supreme Court
Spiller v. Mackereth
Spiller v. Mackereth, 334 So. 2d 859 (Ala. 1976).
Is a cotenant in possession liable to his cotenants for rent when their only demand was that he vacate half of the building or pay rent, and there is no evidence that they tried to enter or were kept out?
Alabama Supreme Court
Landlord and tenant
Landlord and tenant on its own pageHannan v. Dusch
Hannan v. Dusch, 153 S.E. 824 (Va. 1930).
Does a landlord who leases property without an express covenant about delivering possession impliedly promise to oust a former tenant wrongfully holding over, so the premises are open for entry when the new term begins?
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Ernst v. Conditt
Ernst v. Conditt, 390 S.W.2d 703 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964).
Was the transfer of the lease from Rogers to Conditt an assignment or a sublease, when the papers used the words "sublet" and "subletting" and Rogers promised to stay personally liable?
Tennessee Court of Appeals
Berg v. Wiley
Berg v. Wiley, 264 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 1978).
Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury's finding that the tenant had neither abandoned nor surrendered the leased premises before the landlord locked her out?
Minnesota Supreme Court
Real estate transactions
Real estate transactions on its own pageStambovsky v. Ackley
Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991).
Does New York's doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) bar a buyer from seeking rescission when the seller did not disclose a haunting that she herself had publicized and that the buyer could not have found by inspection?
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Recording and title
Recording and title on its own pageBoard of Education of Minneapolis v. Hughes
Bd. of Educ. of Minneapolis v. Hughes, 136 N.W. 1095 (Minn. 1912).
Did a deed delivered with the grantee's name left blank, and with no express authority to fill it in, become operative when the grantee later wrote in his own name?
Minnesota Supreme Court
Luthi v. Evans
Luthi v. Evans, 576 P.2d 1064 (Kan. 1978).
Does recording an instrument that describes the property only by a general "Mother Hubbard" clause give constructive notice of the conveyance to a later purchaser who had no actual knowledge of it?
Kansas Supreme Court
Easements and covenants
Easements and covenants on its own pageSanborn v. McLean
Sanborn v. McLean, 206 N.W. 496 (Mich. 1925).
When a common owner sells lots subject to restrictions for the benefit of retained land, does a reciprocal negative easement attach to the retained lots barring uses forbidden to the sold lots?
Michigan Supreme Court
Neponsit Property Owners' Association v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
Neponsit Prop. Owners’ Ass’n v. Emigrant Indus. Sav. Bank, 15 N.E.2d 793 (N.Y. 1938).
Does an affirmative covenant in a deed requiring the grantee to pay an annual assessment for the maintenance of roads, parks, beaches, and sewers touch and concern the burdened land so as to run with the land?
New York Court of Appeals
Holbrook v. Taylor
Holbrook v. Taylor, 532 S.W.2d 763 (Ky. 1976).
Did the Taylors acquire a right to use the roadway by prescription, meaning long adverse use, when the use before 1965 was by the Holbrooks' permission?
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Othen v. Rosier
Othen v. Rosier, 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950).
Did Othen prove an easement of necessity by implied reservation, when the record did not show that the roadway was a necessity, rather than a convenience, when Hill sold the 100 acres in 1896?
Supreme Court of Texas
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist
Willard v. First Church of Christ, 498 P.2d 987 (Cal. 1972).
Should California keep the common law rule that a grantor cannot, in deeding land to one person, effectively reserve an interest in the land to a stranger to the title?
Supreme Court of California
El Di, Inc. v. Town of Bethany Beach
El Di, Inc. v. Town of Bethany Beach, 477 A.2d 1066 (Del. 1984).
Did conditions in Bethany Beach change so much since the covenants were imposed that a court should refuse to enforce the covenant barring the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Holiday House lot?
Delaware Supreme Court
Nuisance
Nuisance on its own pageBoomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
Boomer v. Atl. Cement Co., 257 N.E.2d 870 (N.Y. 1970).
When a court finds a nuisance that substantially damages neighboring landowners, may it deny an injunction because the economic harm from the nuisance is small next to the economic consequences of closing the plant?
New York Court of Appeals
Land use and takings
Land use and takings on its own pagePenn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
Do the restrictions that New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law places on the development of Grand Central Terminal take the owners' property for public use without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Supreme Court of the United States
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
Does a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's real property authorized by government constitute a taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Supreme Court of the United States
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Haw. Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by not abstaining from deciding the case under the Pullman or Younger abstention doctrines?
Supreme Court of the United States
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
Does conditioning a development permit on the property owners granting a permanent public easement across their beachfront lot constitute a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if the permit condition does not serve the same governmental purpose as a ban on the development?
Supreme Court of the United States
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
Does a land-use regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial or productive use effect a taking that requires just compensation?
Supreme Court of the United States
Dolan v. City of Tigard
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
When a city conditions a building permit on the owner's dedication of land for public use, what degree of connection must exist between the dedication and the projected impact of the proposed development?
Supreme Court of the United States
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas
Vill. of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974).
Is the case still a live controversy, even though the student tenants have left the house and the owners have a continuing interest in the value of their rental property?
Supreme Court of the United States
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002).
Does a moratorium on development imposed while an agency devises a comprehensive land-use plan amount to a per se taking that requires compensation under the Takings Clause?
Supreme Court of the United States