Adjuasement Case Studies

Do the terms of the easement require Mr Hogg to allow you to continue to be able to use the inclinator?

The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

In this case, Mr. Brandt had filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government for "the right-of-way crossing" his land had extinguished after the cessation of the railroad activity in the corridor. The Government had argued that this right was created by the Federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and should be valid on the gounds that the railroad line was affirmed to be abandoned. While reviewing this case, it must be determined whether or not that the Government, under this Act, had retained an interest in the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

1. The Mashpee Wamponoag lost their 1976 lawsuit seeking to reclaim approximately 16,000 acres that had previously belonged to them on Cape Cod. Which of the following was not true regarding the case?

The Appellate Court reasoned that the Trial Court’s finding that the husband transferred the property to tenancy by the entirety solely to avoid a judgment creditor was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because

B. However these promotions and ideas were only a cover-up of that the “governor got them to sign a deed for their land without their knowledge”. The chief’s considerer it out of consideration to that it was not in their power to do any such thing without consent from other nations.

This case is an appeal to the Supreme Court made by the Village of Euclid (the Appellee) to contest the original findings of the trial court. The lower court found that the normal use of the land was for commercial and industrial purposes, thereby giving the case to the Ambler Realty Co. The Village of Euclid decided to take the case to the Supreme Court as they felt it was within their police power to protect the residencies in the immediate area of the originally-zoned industrial park of Ambler Realty Co.

• Received 50 acres of land if own passage was paid. Received additional 50 acres if you paid for another person’s passage.

In Covert, the court concluded that the defendant was on a highway. Id. In Covert, the police patrolled the subdivision. Id. at 73. It can be inferred that the court reasoned that police patrolling of the area was important because police enforce public rules. Id. at 75. Mail delivery services delivered throughout the subdivision Id. at 73. It can be inferred that the court reasoned that delivery services having access was important because it shows that the streets where intended to be utilized by businesses. Id. at 75. Members of the public could freely drive onto the roads as desired. Id. at 73. The court reasoned that access by the public was important because it shows that the streets were intended to be utilized freely. Id. at 75. State issued street signs were present on the road. Id. at 72. It

Whereas, the District’s participation in this Agreement is not an admission of liability but is an attempt to bring closure to disputed issues; and

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

Yes. The third party possessor has a superior claim to the property than the subsequent purchaser in spite of the fact that the possessor has not recorded his deed to the property. The subsequent purchaser had sufficient constructive notice of the third party possessor’s after observing the possessor’s presence on the land. The subsequent purchaser’s constructive notice effectively eliminates his ability to evoke the bona fide purchaser affirmative defense at trail.

If you were the judge on this case and all the parties named in the case description were party to the lawsuit, how would you resolve the case and why? Who would end up with the property and on what terms? Who would get nothing and why?

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.