Property Class Notes

Property Class Notes - Sherwin Property Class Notes...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sherwin Property Class Notes 01/24/05 No class Thursday, Double class on Wednesday…start at 12:15 Read notes to reading Course covers private law of property mostly, only a tiny part on public property law Introduction: 1. Ten short chapters of the book, object to think about what social objectives property is supposed to serve, not a lot of black letter law-Nature and consequences of property rights and how you acquire property rights 2. Chapters 12 -15 – much longer chapters, a great deal of black letter law, traditional property recognized in real property, classic metaphor – property is a bundle of sticks -future interests are hard, but go through in orderly way 3. Landlord tenant law – modern policy of rights of tenants which is expanding 4. Private land use regulation – two neighbors located next to each other, have preferences about how the land next door is used, can make arrangements between owners to prevent people from doing odd stuff 5. Regulatory Notes: we will see a lot of history, interests go back very far, have to see why things were shaped the way they are, property law does not change that fast b/c there are a lot of land titles out there, can’t change the rules all of a sudden w/o changing peoples plans and expectations, do not want to alter the law b/c want to keep the whole system stable, modern policy wrapped in ancient packages State v. Shack -Some materials we have read counter this -about what sort of societal limits we can have on property law Facts: action about trespass entered into land w/o getting permission to do so, the owner desired to exclude them Rights of property: Exclusive possession Use Transfer What is the right of an owner that the action of trespass is supposed to protect? What power do you have that a trespasser is violating? -you get to control who enters and who doesn’t, protects exclusive possession right Why wasn’t this a trespass? Do you read it as that the migrant workers had property interest in this land? Does this fit Blackstone’s idea of despotic property use? The court toyed with idea that the migrant workers have leasehold interest and therefore a property interest, but the court doesn’t go this way 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Said the owners right does not include the right to excluded these people from seeing the migrant workers b/c there are overriding state interest in getting social services to the workers, dilutes exclusive possession – falls short of blackstone’s sole and despotic dominion -we see stewardship – if you are going to have migrant workers on your property, you will bow to the interest of the state and allow social service workers on your land to meet with them -Controversial questions – they invoke political positions on property rights, wide range of political positions – this case is a little to the left of blackstone, but not way to the left, recognize rights of workers over property owner Was it a constitutional decision that he could not exclude these migrant workers? If not what was it? Was the court applying federal constitutional law or state law?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/05/2008 for the course LAW prop taught by Professor Sherwin during the Spring '06 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 224

Property Class Notes - Sherwin Property Class Notes...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online