Case Analysis : Ms Sophie Marsh And A Private Nuisance Against Mr. Frank Stark. Marsh

This memorandum assesses the merits of Anne Peters’ in West Palm Beach, Florida, for possible claims against Don and Betty Detman for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for violation of Florida’s Spite Fence statute.

Keli Lane-Contemporary Criminal Case Original case citation: R V Keli Lane (2011) NSWSC 298, 15 April 2011, Whealy JA (1) Appeal citation : R V Keli Lane (2013) NSWCCA 317, 13 December 2013(1) Elements of the offence: Actus Reus: Keli Lane was found guilty of murder and three counts of false swearing.

Coty v. Ramsey Assocs., 149 Vt. 451, 457 (Vt. 1988). In Coty, when one is trying to determine whether a particular type of interference is substantial the interference would have to be deemed as having "definite offensiveness, inconvenience or annoyance to the normal person in the community." Id. So, has to be determined if the recently constructed chicken coop in Mr. Ellis’ yard are substantial and unreasonable enough to create a private nuisance according to Vermont law. Id. For a nuisance to be unreasonable it means that it would not be reasonable to permit the defendant to cause such an amount of harm intentionally without compensating for it. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 88, at 626-37,626 (5th ed. 2001).

Among other charges, the plaintiff alleges battery or trespass as one of the offenses committed by the defendant. The question now becomes what constitutes a charge of battery and or trespass and does this embody any of the elements or circumstances that may apply to this particular case. According to criminal law, a battery is defined as both a tort and a crime, and involves the unlawful or unwanted physical contact of another person. This is supported by the reading, “Battery is the actual touching” (Showalter, 2017, pg.127). A trespass to person is any act that excites an apprehension of battery. This is supported by the text, “Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual” (Trespass to the person,

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

§ 75.007. TRESPASSERS. (a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

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.

Rules: The majority of jurisdictions in the United States allow for recovery in cases of trespass to land, and in this case Farmer would have grounds to file a claim for intentional tort against Pilot, as his privately owned land was trespassed on, with the action resulting in quantifiable damage to Farmer's valuable crops. The courts must decide whether or not Pilot's landing of the plane in Farmer's field constitutes an intentional act, or simply an act of negligence on Pilot's part. To do so, they must examine the three elements of trespass to land: Voluntary Act, Intent, and Damages. Another aspect of this case that the courts would consider is that of liability, as according to an article published by the Harvard Law Review, "cases of liability are those in which the defendant generates a disproportionate, excessive risk of harm, relative to the victim's risk-creating activity ... (and) a pilot or an airplane owner subjects those beneath the path of flight to nonreciprocal risks of harm" (Fletcher, 1972).

To hold a landowner liable for physical harm to trespassing children, a plaintiff must prove that children, because of their youth, do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it. Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 599 P.2d 209 (Ariz. 1979). If a child, while realizing the danger of his or her conduct, disregards the risk out of the spirit of bravado or

Some federal statutes address fraud in government health care programs, and many of these laws vary considerably (Krause 2004). Some of these laws specifically target health care fraud. Example of the laws that the government direct at inappropriate health care activities includes the “Medicare and Medicaid Anti-Kickback Statute and Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (EPRA).”

“A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable invasion of the private use and enjoyment of one’s land.” (McAdams, 2009)

Under Arizona law, to determine whether an attractive nuisance claim is enforceable, the court must consider if the condition is artificial and the elements listed: “(1) the place where the condition is maintained is one upon which the possessor knows or should know that such children are likely to trespass, and (2) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or should know and which he realizes or should realize as involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling in it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (4) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition is slight as compared to the risk to young children involved therein.” Buekeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren, 46 P.2 1068, 1071 (Ariz. 1935). Both parties have agreed that the condition is artificial. This motion is to set forth that the first two elements are met.

Whether Sherman, under the attractive nuisance doctrine, will likely prevail against Carlisle for multiple injuries he sustained in a fall from wooden steps of a tree house in disrepair while trespassing upon Carlisle’s property when: (1) Carlisle was aware that the neighborhood surrounding his property was populated with children; (2) a severe storm had damaged Carlisle’s property and exposed the previously concealed tree house; (3) Sherman was six years of age at the time of his injury; (4) Carlisle had little incentive to make repairs to the tree house prior to the storm because of its concealment; (5) immediately following the storm, Carlisle made arrangements with a contractor at a higher than average rate to make

Harvey peacefully conducted himself. Regular movements and acts people carry out daily are generally regarded as peaceful conduct. In Messa, stepping off an elevator and walking down a hall was considered peaceful conduct even though the dog considered the movement hostile. 209 N.E.2d at 874. Similarly, in Dobrin the plaintiff was peacefully conducting himself by walking a path from a public way to the front door of a house for business purposes. 259 N.E.2d at 406-07. In Nelson, a little girl’s conduct of playing a children’s game and accidentally falling or stepping on a dog was not disputed as unpeaceful conduct. 344 N.E.2d at 270.

An entrance for the purpose of a trespass does not need to be a person, but can result indirectly through an object or action controlled by the defendant. See Fed. Ins., 583 F. Supp. 2d at 229-30 (finding that electromagnetic fields may constitute an entrance for the purpose of a trespass). However, there must be physical damage to the property of others. Id. at 229-30. In Federal Insurance, the plaintiff alleged the electromagnetic field caused a pipe to burst resulting in extensive flooding. Id. at 229-30. Here though the plaintiffs did not allege any physical property