Final Flashcards
First in Time, First in Right
first in time: whoever gets their first has first possession
first in right: someone who may not have gotten their first has right to possess
Acquisition by Capture
pursuit alone does not vest a property right. The pursuer must:
1) manifest unequivocal intention of appropriating the resource to their use
2) destroy its natural liberty
3) bring it within their control
Rationae soli
constructive possession is where the owner has control over the property w/o actual real physical control; applies to animals on owner’s land
Johnson v. M’Intosh (NA land)
party who acquired title through US gov’t had superior title; title by Native Americans not recognized
Pierson v. Post (fox & hound)
pursuit alone (w/ hunting dogs does not indicate possession). Dissent: local hunting custom should apply
Keeble v. Hickerngill (duck pond)
property owner lawfully using his land for profit is free to do so w/o interference from others
Ghen v. Rich (whale harpooning)
person doesnt necessarily have to be in physical possession of an object to acquire it by capture if local rules dictate. Lockean: whoever did the labor, gets it
Armory v. Delamirie (sweep finds jewel)
Finder’s rights superior to anyone else except rightful owner
Hanna v. Peel (found brooch)
general rule: if chattel is attached to real property, it presumably is owned by land owner (possession and intent to control), but in this case, the landowner never inhabited the home, nor even knew of the brooch.
general rule for ownership
prior possession+intent to control= yours
McAvoy v. Medina (mislaid property)
shopowner has duty to keep property until owner claims it. If owner never claims, its abandoned
Adverse Possession
allows for transfer of land interests w/o consent of prior owner if:
1) there is an entry that is actual and exclusive
2) the entry is open and notorious
3) the entry is continuous for the statutory period
4) the entry is adverse under hostile claim of right
Lutz (bad blood AP)
Since Lutz knew the land was not his, the court held that he didn’t “hostiley” claim the land. DISSENT (better understood AP): intent doesn’t matter, Lutz improved the land and his right vested before neighbors moved in and had a problem
Manillo v. Gorski (15 in steps)
while AP can be based on mistake, the minor encroachment of 15 inches is not enough to be open and notorious
Maine vs Connecticut Doctrine
Maine: must have hostile intent to maintain title by AP
CT: intent does not matter as long as the rest of the requirements are met
Maine vs Connecticut Doctrine
Maine: must have hostile intent to maintain title by AP
CT: intent does not matter as long as the rest of the requirements are met
Tacking
adding multiple terms of AP together to make a full period.
Tacking is permitted if the parties are in privity. Privity can be established by K or relation. Requires a voluntary transfer of the land from the AP-er to subsequent possessor.
Howard v. Kunto (tacking)
purchaser may tack adverse use of its predecessor in interest to that of his own where the land was intended to be included in the deed but wasnt. Summer occupancy was enough to establish continuous bc in line w/ norm in the area and improvements made were permanent.
Encroachment
permanent and continuing trespass caused by construction of building or other improvement that partially extends on another’s land
Pile v. Pedrick (encroachment)
property owner has absolute right to their property, no matter how minor the encroachment
good faith improver
good faith improver must:
1) improve and be invested in the property
2) at least act under the mistaken belief they own the property
-held to a negligence standard
Raab v. Casper (good faith improver or lack thereof)
Casper fails to survey land and starts building. Raab tells him its not his land, so Casper now has knowledge the land is not his–> no longer improving in good faith
Discovery rule (AP of chattel)
when owner knows/should know through due diligence about the facts of a theft that lead to a COA, SOL begins to run
1) whether owner used due diligence to find lost chattel
2) what’s the effective method for the owner to alert the world?
3) whether owner’s method of notice would put a RPP on alert that someone other than current possessor is the true owner?
O’Keefe v. Snyder (AP of paintings)
SOL didnt start to run until O’Keefe had reason to know of the thief. When she learned her stolen paintings were in NYC, that’s when she can begin to identify thief. She has to know who took the paintings to have COA.
General requirements for gifts of personal property
1) donor must make a present transfer of an existing interest in the property
2) donor must deliver possession to donee
3) donee must accept the gift
types of delivery of a gift
actual- preferred, show evidence of gift and intent to give it
constructive- evidence of intent is undisputed or handing over a key or something to allow access to gift
symbolic- something symbolic of the gift, usually a signed writing
Newman v. Bost (death bed)
when articles are capable of actual delivery, they must be actually delivered; the gift of all personal property was not delivered by merely handing over keys to locked wardrobe
Gruen v. Gruen
although donor maintained possession til death, the letter to the son saying he wanted him to have painting was sufficient.
Elements of Copyright Protection
1)originality
2) work of authorship (not systems, discoveries, or procedures)
3) fixation (the work is some sort of tangible medium)
Hot News Doctrine
newsgather may recover from ∆ if:
1) collection process required substantial expenditure
2) news is time sensitive
3) ∆ freerides on collected material
4) free riding directly competes w/ newsgather’s market
5) free riding is likely to diminish incentives to collect news timely
Prove Copyright Infringement
1) prove ownership of valid copyright
2) prove copying constituent elements of the original work
Fair Use
1) purpose and character of copyrighted work transformative from OG
2) nature of copyrighted work
3) amount and substantiality of copied work in relation to OG
4) effect the copying has on the market of OG work
Patentability under FPA
1) patentability: process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter
2) novelty: not been done before
3) utility: does the invention offer some benefit
4) non-obviousness: is the invention a big advance over the prior art
5) enablement: application describes invention in detail and how to use it
types of public domain
public trust (land held for public use)
copyright
trademark
Matthews v. Bayhead reasonable enjoyment factors
- location of dry sand in relation to foreshore
- extent and availability of publicly owned upland sand
- nature/extent of public demand
-usage of upland sand by owner
trademark
any word, name, symbol, or device used by a person to identify and distinguish their goods/services from those sold by others and indicate the source of the goods/services
Trademark Protection Requirements
1) distinctiveness
2) non-functionality: can’t be useful to the design (patent law protects functionality)
3) first use in trade (not first in adoption)
In re Cordua Restaurants Generic Test
what kind of goods/services at issue?
does the term refer to the kind of goods/services as understood by the general public?
right to exclude
property owners have the right to full enjoyment of property and that includes excluding others from their property
Exceptions to the right to exclude
- access to gov’t services (state v. shack- migrant farm)
-civil rights legislation banning discrimination
-rent controls and LL right to exclude tenants
-AP
-public access to private beaches
right to alienate
generally, restraint on right to alienate is invalid but can be valid if restraint is reasonable or not unlimited
Impression v. Lexmark
once a product is sold, it enters the public domain and seller can no longer impose restrictions (controls/resale limits) on the product
right to abandon
generally no right to abandon real property; to abandon chattel, owner must:
1) intend to relinquish all interest in the property, w/ no intent of the interest vesting in someone else
2) voluntary act by the owner effectuating intent
Poconos Springs v. Mackenzie (no sewer pipe)
if owner has perfect title, property cannot be abandoned. There must be a transfer of title.
