LJA revision JP

McAvoy vs Medina

“A finder of mislaid property has no superior claim over the owner of the premises, because mislaid items are deemed left intentionally and the premises owner is best positioned to return them to the true owner.”

Cedar Point Nursery vs Hassid 

“A regulation that grants third parties a right to physically enter private property amounts to a per se taking, because it appropriates the owner’s fundamental right to exclude.”

Kelo vs city of New London

Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens.

Hannah vs Peel 1945 

When an object is found on a land but the owner of the land never take physical possession of his land , he don’t have a superior right over the first discoverer

Gruen vs Gruen 1986

a future inter vivos gift is valid if the three condition of a inter vivos gift are meet

Ford vs Allen 1975 

a restrict on alienation on a land is illegal 

Smedley vs city of Waldron

the only exception for the interdiction to restrict alienation right is to make a restraint beneficial to the public ( a person indicate that is property will be given to the town but its public function need to remain intact ) 

Anderson vs Goulberg 1892

the mere possession of something even though wrongful is sufficient title for the party in possession of it to have a superior claim to any stranger ( but the actual owner )

Clark vs maloney 1840

the first finder of lost property has superior title to any other finder

Armory vs delamirie 1722

the first finder of an object has a property interest which is not absolute but is sufficient to allow the finder to keep the object against all claims but those made by the rightful owner

Lucas vs south carolina Coastal Council 1992

When the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good has suffered a taking

Penn central transp Co vs City of New York

install a balancing test in order to establish if a regulation constitute a regulatory taking or not :

first condition → the economical impact of the regulation on the owner

second condition →  the extent to which the regulation interferes with “distinct investment-backed expectations

third condition → the character of the regulation

Pennsylvania Coal VS Mahon ( 1922 )

A regulation that severely diminishes the value of private property amounts to a taking and requires compensation, although deference should be given to the legislature, and a case-by-case evaluation is required.

Cahill vs Morrow 2000

Wills vs Pierce

Dans Wills v. Pierce, la Cour pose que lorsqu’un terrain est donné “aussi longtemps que” une condition est respectée, la propriété s’éteint automatiquement dès que la condition disparaît : il s’agit d’un fee simple determinable.