Vital for efficiency in our market economy because it helps to ensure that property is devoted to its most valuable use 3. Johnson v M’Intosh [ 21 U.S (8 Wheat) 543 (1823)] 1. Native Americans only have a right to occupy the land, not own it, and the US government had the ability to conquer the land and do with it as it sees fit, including extinguish the Native Americans right to occupy. 2. U.S possesses the fee and the tribe possesses a right of occupancy 1. Tribe can’t freely alienate property- can only be transferred to the U.S 2. US may convey the fee interest without the consent of the tribe (subject to occupancy unless government decides to extinguish right of occupancy and they also retain the right to do so) 3. U.S is in a trust relationship with the tribe and must protect the tribe against claims of title made by other nations 4. Native Americans not entitled to claim of first-in-time rule b/c they were too warlike per courts to be peaceful citizens, and they were nomadic hunters so they did not utilize the land efficiently 4. Moore v Regents University of California [793 P.2d 479 (1990) cert. denied, 499 U. S. 936 (1991) 1. Plaintiff did not prove cause of action with conversion. The cells were used to create something drastically different from the original and there was no actual interference with ownership or right of possession. ∆ could still be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of consent for cells being used without consent, but there are no property rights in human bodies and there is a distinction with body parts that can be replenished versus those that can’t. 2. Right to exclude 1. Each owner has a broad right to exclude anyone else from his property, which comes from English common law (C.L.) 2. Jacque v Steenberg Homes 1. Orientation assignment on right to exclude, with mobile home company that plowed snow on Jacque’s land to deliver home to a neighbor when there was another route available
1. Holding was that owner had a right to exclude 3. State v Shack [Supreme Court of New Jersey 277 A. 2d 369 (1971)] 1. Migrant farmworkers are unaware of their rights and that is the reason this government program was developed. Owner let the workers onto his farm and due to the need for public or private necessity, there can be justification for entering the land without permission. The health of the workers is paramount, and while the owner can require to see identification of the visitors, he can not deny access to the land as there is no need to prevent the workers from receiving aid from the government or a charity 3. Right to use 1. Traditionally, an owner had the absolute right to use his land in any way he wished as long as it did not injure someone else’s property. Now, common law doctrine of nuisance applies. 1. Private nuisance requires an (1) intentional, (2) non-trespassatory, (3) unreasonable and substantial interference with (4) the use and enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s land 1.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 41 pages?
- Fall '08
- Common Law, Future interest