L Rule Maj cannot have AP against the gov its the peoples land Minority Allow

L rule maj cannot have ap against the gov its the

This preview shows page 4 - 5 out of 20 pages.

C.L. Rule (Maj) – cannot have AP against the gov., it’s the peoples land. ** Minority: Allow AP against gov ONLY for the gov property uses for propriety, not public purpose. Color of Title Howard v. Kunto: Issues: (1) Does using property as a summer home constitute uninterrupted use for purpose of AP; (2) may a previous owner’s time occupying a property count toward the statutory period so as to constitute AP? Holding: Yes. Rule: (1) Continuous use satisfied by using property in same way any owner would there (summer home); (2) time of 2 AP may be “tacked” together if they have “privity” of estateVERTICAL DIMENSION OF OWNERSHIP (SKY AND SUBSURFACE)Common LawLandowners title extended up to the “heavens” and down to the center of the earth.Parcel of real property seen as long slender column which stretched upward from our plant’s center to the surface and then infinitely to space.Modern ApproachLandowner entitled to airspace immediately above his property.oAt least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.oSome suggest 500 ft.minimum altitude for flights; or easement for planes.5thAmendment: nor shall any private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.United States v. Causby– P owned a chicken business and home near an airport that US was using. Planes caused noise and lights that was overwhelming intrusive causing sleep prob., fear, led to death of chix and closing of his business. Issue: Under these circumstances, was there a taking by the gov., of the P’s property? Holding: Yes. Rule: landowners own the space above their land to some extent of airspace “apart from the immediate reaches above the land is public airspace.”Subsurface RightsCommon Law: 2 supporting doctrines to “center of the earth” theory: (1) lateral support: to have his land in its natural condition supported by the adjacent parcels of land (excavating next door resulting in sink hole on my prop); and (2) subjacent support: to have her land in its natural condition supported by the earth immediately below it. (i.e. exercise min rights bc another removes coal) BOTH MADE THE PERP STICKLY LIABLEModern: Courts not adhering to center of the earth, rather depths of 100 feet re foundations, roots; reasonable and foreseeable.Some courts cannot be extended to a depth below ground which the owner may not reasonably make useChance v. BP Chemicals, Inc.– P sue BP for trespass stemming from BP’s disposal of waste okayed by EPA. The parties contested the location of the injection and the likely extent of the migration underlying P’s property. Issue: Was there a trespass against the P’s, and do P’s have prop rights against ∆? Holding: No. Rule: landowners do not own everything below the surface of their land; there are limits on subsurface rights. Ownership extends only as far downward as is necessary to protect uses by the surface owner which are both “reasonable and foreseeable.”Need some type of physical damages or interference to recover for trespass.
Background image
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture