Law and Economics Cases

Bryant v. LeFever

• Neighbors, one’s built a new wall so chimney directs smoke right back into other’s house

• Decision: It is not LeFever’s fault for building a wall, but Bryant’s fault for building the fire. You have the right to use your property how you want it, as long as it doesn’t affect or harm others

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp v. Fourty-Five Twenty-Five

• Two oceanfront hotels, one hotel wanted to add an addition, which blocked out the sun from the other businesses

• Decision: There is no law that says that a landowner has a legal right to the free flow of light and air across the adjoining land of the neighbor

Prah v. Maretti

• The plaintiff’s residence uses solar energy, and the defendant bought the lot adjacent to the resident and planned to build a home, which would affect the solar energy collecting

• Decision: the plaintiff seeking to protect access to sunlight as a source of energy, not for aesthetic reasons. Access to sunlight as an energy source is important to the landowner and to society which has an interest in developing alternative sources of energy

Spur Industries v. Del E. Web

• Developer sued to permanently enjoin a cattle feedlot operation that was in close proximity to a residential development it was creating.

• Decision: There was a public nuisance, but the company who was initially complaining need to pay for the other company to shut down or move, which is the most economical result

Ploof v. Putnam

• Ship owner in face of storm tied ship to dock without permission to save the ship and its passengers, dock owner then proceeded to untie the ship destroying it

• Decision: doctrine of necessity, in cases of necessity, property laws can be suspended because it is more efficient to save a life than risk severe injury/death

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.

• The Defendant’s steamship remained tied to Plaintiff’s dock. If the steamship had been untied, it would have drifted to sea. The storm threw the steamship into Plaintiff’s dock causing damage to the dock

• Decision: A party who damages the property of another while acting out of private necessity must compensate the property owner for resulting damages

Rexite Casting v. Midwest Motor

• Two entered a contract, with specifics on the quality of the castings and a payment schedule. Rexite delivered them, but Midwest refused to pay because they were defective

• Decision: Court ruled in favor of Rexite, stating that Midwest breached the contract. Castings met qualifications and Midwest’s refusal to pay was unjustified

Hadley & Anor v. Baxendale & Ors

• Hadley’s mill crankshaft broke, stopping all operations, hiring Baxendale to transport the shaft for repairs, but they delayed delivery beyond the agreed time, causing Hadley’s mill to stay closed for longer than expected

• Decision: Court ruled in favor of Baxendale, stating they were not aware of the reliance of the crankshaft, couldn’t have known the economic impact of the delay or foreseen the consequences

Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz

• Special carrots, specified guidelines in the contract not selling to anyone else, there was great increased demand in the market, seller sold to another company for a higher price

• Decision: Found the contract of goods to be one-sided due to the uniqueness in the market. Restricted the growers heavily, denied the request for an injunction and specific performance

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture

• Williams, a low-income buyer, entered into contracts with Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. that allowed the company to repossess all items purchased if she defaulted on any payment. This provision effectively kept a balance on all items until everything was paid off

• Decision: Contract was unenforceable due to the lack of meaningful choice for one party along with favorable terms, took advantage of her financial vulnerability, enforced the idea that contracts should not be blindly enforced when one party lacks real choice, and the terms are overwhelmingly one-sided

Laidlaw v. Organ

• Organ and Laidlaw agreed to a tobacco sale at a set price. Organ knew the War of 1812 would raise tobacco's value but didn't inform Laidlaw. After the sale, Laidlaw asked if Organ had any knowledge about the value increase, which Organ denied. Laidlaw then took back the tobacco upon learning the truth. Organ sued to enforce the contract.

• Decision: The plaintiff was not bound to share the knowledge that would affect the price, involved parties should conduct their own research and cannot depend on the other party

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

• Owner of barge wasn’t there and had to be, towing company took apart the barge and resecured it, towing company didn’t do a good job securing it and the barge crashed

• Decision: the barge owner was at fault, a reasonable person would have been there

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

• A passenger carrying a package wrapped in newspaper was assisted onto a train by railroad guards, the package fell, exploded (it contained fireworks), and caused scales on the platform to dislodge, injuring the plaintiff standing far away, the plaintiff sued the railroad for damages, alleging negligence.

• The railroad owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, their injury was not a foreseeable result of the guards’ actions

Butterfield v. Forrester

• Forrester placed a pole across a public road while repairing his house, partially obstructing it. Butterfield, riding his horse recklessly, didn't notice the obstruction, which was visible from 100 yards away. He crashed, was thrown from his horse, and suffered severe injuries. Butterfield sued Forrester for damages.

• Decision: The plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care, and this failure contributes to their injury, they may be barred from recovering damages.

Shomaker v. Havey

• Lambert Schomaker was standing on the running board of Richard Havey's moving car. As Havey approached an intersection, he suddenly swerved, causing Schomaker to be thrown to the ground and fatally injured. 

• Schomaker was guilty of contributory negligence because standing on the running board of a moving vehicle is inherently dangerous. Therefore, Schomaker assumed the risk of his position, and his widow could not recover damages from Havey.

Scott v. Alpha Beta Company

• Plaintiff slipped walking in from the heavy rain wearing slippers. A mat had wet when Scott fell, and she hurt her knee needing surgery.

• The court ruled it was 60% the store's fault and 40% Scott because she did not take all the precautions, already had a hurt knee and was obese.

Spano v. Perini Corporation

• Perini Corp. was hired by New York City to construct an underground tunnel using dynamite. A blast on November 27, 1962, damaged Spano's garage and Davis's car inside it. Spano and Davis sued Perini for negligence.

• The trial court held Perini could be absolutely liable without negligence and awarded Spano $4,400 and Davis $329 in damages. Perini appealed, and the Appellate Term reversed.

Gideon v. Wainwright

• Gideon was charged, asked to be appointed a lawyer and was denied, has to defend himself, found guilty

• In favor of Gideon, his 6th Amendment right was violated, had a new trial, the 6th amendment applies to state courts as well

Brady v. Maryland

• Brady and Boblit was being tried for murder, Boblit confessed to the murder but the prosecution withheld that information

• The prosecution cannot withhold evidence from the defense, against due process rights, called the Brady Rule

Batson v. Kentucky

• Batson, a black man, was charged for a crime. Prosecution used their peremptory challenges to remove all the black jurors

• Ruled it violated his Equal Protection Clause. Created the Batson Challenge, which allows defense to contest jury exclusions based on race

Mapp v. Ohio

• Mapp was suspected of harboring a fugitive, police forcible entered her home without a warrant and found obscene materials and arrested her

• Ruled that evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures are inadmissible, extended the exclusionary rule to state courts

Miranda v. Arizona

• Miranda was arrested in Arizona for rape and kidnapping, he was interrogated without being told he could stay silent or have an attorney present, he confessed, and it was used to convict him

• Ruled that suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation. Created Miranda Rights

People v. De Bour

• De Bour was seen by police walking down the street, crossing upon seeing the officers, they approached him and notices a bulge in his jacket, they uncovered a loaded revolver and arrested him

• Ruled that police may approach individuals for information without suspicion of criminal activity, but further intrusion needs justification. Established the 4 levels of police-civilian encounters

  • Request for information

  • Common-law right of inquiry

  • Stop and frisk

  • Arrest

People v. Ingle

• A defendant can challenge the stop of a motor vehicle (and ultimately any evidence recovered subsequent to the stop)

Rickard v. Du Bon

• Rickard had a patent for a process that put chemicals on tobacco leaves to make them resemble Sumatra tobacco, which was highly valued. Du Bon used a similar method but used a different chemical. Rickard sued for patent infringement

• Ruled that the patent was invalid as its primary purpose was to deceive customers

O’Reilly v. Morse

• Samuel Morse had a patent for his invention. O’Reilly, a competitor used a similar method and was sued

• Ruled Morse’s broad claim was too abstract and invalid. Established that patents must be specific to a practical application

Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International

• Alice Corp. owned patents for a computer-implemented method to reduce settlement risk. CLS International sued arguing they were too abstract

• Ruled that just implementing an idea does not make it patentable, reinforced limits on software patents

Mattel v. MGA Entertainment

• Mattel, the maker of Barbie, sued MGA entertainment, claiming the Bratz dolls were created by a former Mattel employee while he was still working for Mattel, arguing it owned the intellectual property

• Initially ruled in favor of Mattel, but reversed the decision saying that MGA had significantly developed Bratz, making it unfair to transfer

Kelo v. City of New London

• Kelo, a homeowner, challenged the city’s plans to seize her property, the city argued it would create jobs and increase tax revenue

• Ruled that it qualifies as a public use

Kohl v. US

• The government wanted to acquire land in Cincinatti to build a post office and federal buildings. Landowners challenged

• Ruled that the government has the right to exercise eminent domain as long as just compensation is provided

Berman v. Parker

• Congress passed the DOC Redevelopment Act, allowing the government to seize private property to address urban blight

• Ruled that eliminating urban blight was a valid public purpose

State of GA v. Tennessee Copper

• GA sued Tennessee Copper Company arguing their operations in Tennessee were emitting harmful gases

• Ruled that GA had the right to seek an injunction to stop the pollution, enforcing the state’s ability to challenge cross-border pollution

Sierra club v. Morton

• Sierra club sued saying a proposed ski resort would harm the environment

• Ruled that the Sierra Club lacked standing because it did not show that its members would suffer direct harm

EPA v. National Crushed Stone Association

• The EPA set pollution discharge limits for industries like coal mining and mineral processing. National crushed stone association challenged, arguing economic hardship should be considered

• Ruled the EPA was not required to consider an individual company’s economic ability