The Case Of Hunter V Canary Wharf

Under Vermont Common Law does Mr. John Ellis’ recently created chicken coop in a residential neighborhood constitutes a private nuisance when Mr. Ellis’ rooster and the hens generate odors and noises that could be considered unreasonable and substantial interferences with Ms. Alicia Carmody’s enjoyment of her yard?

The Plaintiff is claiming $35 million from the State of NSW, which is purported to be vicariously liable for the Land and Environment Court and Pain J [1]. This claim includes nullifying Pain J’s judgment [14], and it is accompanied by Motions to uphold Lloyd J’s dismissal and refund the Plaintiff’s filing fees [2].

A nuisance involves one person's unreasonable use of land, which interferes with the enjoyment and use of adjoining land by other persons or a community.

The second issue is the tort of nuisance, which could be compared to the tort of trespass to land. “Nuisance occurs when the defendant unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its own land.” (McInnes, 112) Once Maldini recognized who Smiley was, his enjoyment of land was interfered with. Maldini was worried that Smiley

Plaintiff Gayle Payne (“Ms. Payne”) brought a class action complaint against Rob Manfred, the Commissioner of MLB (“Commissioner”), the office of the commissioner (“MLB”), and all 30 Major League Baseball member teams, alleging the defendants’ failure and inaction in providing reasonable safety measures to protect game-goers from risk of serious injury while attending games. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Ms. Payne sought “class-wide injunctive or equitable relief in the form of changes to current MLB rules and practices with respect to protective netting in MLB ballparks” (Gail Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB), 2015). She filed this negligence suit in hopes of remediating the possibility of frequent injuries at baseball stadiums.

Using the doctrine of attractive nuisance the Ohio Duty of Care owed to Trespasser Statute establishes liability of real property owners for injuries sustained by minor trespassers. . The purpose of the statute is to balance the property owner rights to enjoy their property and society’s interest in protecting children from harm by attractive nuisance. Bennett v. Stanley, 748 N.E.2d 41, (Ohio 2001). The Statute provides:

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

1) The defendants bought the property next to the Cook family in order to build a house. During the process of construction the Sullivan family needed to raise the elevation in order to build the house. They filled in wetlands in order to place the house on their land. Once the Sullivan’s did this to their property, the Cook family started having more than usual flooding to their yard, garage, and lower level of their house during spring and summer.

Whether the homeless possessor has the legal right to any portion the landowner’s property, if he has paid taxes for the last thirteen years, file a return and has protected the property by substantial enclosure. Whether the homeless possessor has the right to any part of the two acres in disputed despite the fact that the registered owner has consciously, and willingly permitted him to stay in the property.

If the gasoline leak did trespass onto the property, then the Keith Family may have a claim. Based on the assumption that the gasoline leak did not touch their property, the Keith Family cannot claim trespass for the second project.

Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.

Let’s review the case of Lisa and Danny as we know the facts of the case Lisa and Danny live next to one another. Fifteen years ago Lisa built a gazebo on Danny property with a fence between the two. We will determine if the elements of Adverse Possession were met. Element one does Lisa take possession of the property. Yes she does by Lisa build the gazebo and a fence on Danny’s property. Element two was the possession open and visible Lisa didn’t try to hide the fact that she took the land. The possession was for fifteen and she never stopped using it so element three has been met which says possession must be continuous and peaceable for a required time ten years. Lisa also took the property in a hostile and adverse manner. I think all

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is, that the personal who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there