Property Law Final - Cases

Cases to memorize

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823)

Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823)

• Land titles transferred to Native Americans to private individuals under foreign rule (British) before the American Revolution aren’t recognized in the US

• Doctrine of Discovery: settler’s “discovery” of land grants them the right to obtain title, either by purchase or conquest, Native Americans have the (limited) right of occupancy

US v. Washington (2016)

Indigenous people in the PNW have the right by treaty to access usual and accustom fishing sites, the government cannot encroach on this right

Illinois Central RR Co. v. Illinois (1892)

The public trust doctrine prevents the legislature from granting a private corporation (Illinois RR Co.) title to submerged lands (land under the Chicago harbor) that are held in trust for the public

Lake Michigan Fed v. US Army Corps of Engineers (1990)

• Affirmed Illinois Central RR’s holding, the water and surrounding areas of Lake Michigan belongs to the public trust

• Lake Michigan Federation sought an injunction against Loyola Chicago from constructing a 20 acre lakefill on its campus - violation of the public trust - Court agreed

• Three basic principles from the body of public trust case law:

  • Courts should be hesitant to surrender valuable public resources to a private entity

  • The public trust is violated when the primary purpose of a legislative grant is to benefit a private interest

  • Any attempt by the state to relinquish its power over a public resource should be invalidated under the doctrine

Juliana v. United States (9th Cir.) (2020)

• Federal courts do not have the authority to redress a claim by requiring the government to develop an action plan

• Restricted judicial review for public trust and the Due Process Clause as it pertains to climate action

Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Association (1984)

• The public trust doctrine extends to dry beach area above the foreshore owned by a quasi-public entity

• The public must be given both access to and use of privately-owned dry sand beaches as reasonably necessary

• (New Jersey case for dry sand beaches)

Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach (1994)

• Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed that Oregon has custom to dry sand beaches

• Writ of Cert denied by SCOTUS - but Scalia dissented, saying that a prior Oregon decision (McDonald v. Halvorson, 1989) said that there may be some parcels of coastline that exist outside of the custom, so it’s worth reviewing

• BUT they weren’t the majority so Oregon still has custom to all dry sand beaches :) fu scalia rot in hell <3

Pierson v. Post (1805)

• Rule of Capture, property in wild animals is acquired by occupancy, meaning at least mortally wounding or capturing from a distance, and at most physical possession

• The little fox, got chased by one person and captured by another - the one who captured it got possession because it had physical possession

State v. Shack (1971)

• The ownership of real property does not include the right to refuse access to individuals providing government services to workers who are housed on the property

• Property owner wanted to refuse a legal aid worker on his arm who was having a consultation with one of his workers, government said the owner couldn’t do that - real property rights are not absolute

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

• State court enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

Miller v. Schoene (1928)

• If a state is forced to make a choice between saving one of two types of property, the state does not violate the Due Process Clause by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the legislature’s judgment, is more valuable to the public

• Cedar tree versus apple trees, court held to save the apple trees since they were more valuable

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• A state’s use of eminent domain to condemn property from private individuals and redistribute it to other private individuals constitutes a “public use” under the 5th Amendment if it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose

• A state may exercise its eminent-domain authority to condemn private property and sell it to private developers for the purpose of creating new jobs and increasing tax revenues without violating the “public use” requirement of the 5th amendment

  • (The state may take private property and distribute it to private developers without violating the 5th Amendment)

• An economic benefit conferred on the general public can still constitute a viable public purpose

Penn Central v. New York City (1978)

• Test in determining whether a state regulation constitutes a taking under the 5th and 14th Amendments

• Courts should consider:

  • The economic impact of the regulation on the owner,

  • The extent to which the regulation has interfered with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations, and

  • The character of the government action involved in the regulation

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

• A state regulation that completely deprives a private property of all its economic values constitute a taking under the 5th and 14th amendments that requires the payment of just compensation to the property owner

  • UNLESS the economic activity prevented by the regulation is not part of the owner’s initial title or property rights when acquiring the property

• Test:

  1. Threshold question: is there a complete deprivation of all economically viable use?

  2. If so, does the restriction inhere in the background principles of the state’s nuisance or property law?

  3. If NO - that’s a taking!

  4. If YES - that’s not a taking

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• A landowner who acquires land after regulations take effect can still raise a regulatory takings claim

  • Any taking claim needs to be evaluated as a regulatory taking under the Penn Central test

• The Takings Clause exists because of some exercise of a state’s regulatory power are so unreasonable and onerous as to compel the payment of just compensation

Just v. Marinette County (1972)

• A landowner does not have an absolute right to change the essential, natural character of the land to use it for an unsuitable and unnatural purpose that would injure the rights of others

  • Zoning regulations must be reasonable, also regulations that are pro-environment are valid exercises of police power

Esplanade v. City of Seattle (2002)

• A municipality’s deprivation of all beneficial use of a landowner’s property does not constitute a taking if the uses were already prohibited by state law

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

• A permit condition may constitute a taking if there is not an essential nexus connecting the imposition of the condition to a legitimate state interest in solving a problem relating to the development

• ESSENTIAL NEXUS TEST

Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)

• The government may not, without just compensation, place land use conditions on an approval of a private property development plan unless there is a “rough proportionality” between the conditions and the impact of the proposed development

• ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY TEST

Koontz v. St. Johns (2013)

• The government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must have NEXUS (Nollan) and ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY (Dolan) between the demand and the effects of the proposed land use

• (even when the government denies the permit and even when the government’s demand is for money)

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)

• A temporary moratorium on development imposed for the purpose of developing a comprehensive land-use plan does not constitute a per se taking of property for public use requiring the payment of just compensation under the 5th Amendment