Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Case List Policies - Main Points

Estancias v. Schultz (TX) Nuisance (Balancing of Equities = Injunction, Fairness,


Public Interest)
Boomer v. Atlantic
Cement (NY)
Nuisance (Balancing of Equities = Temp. Inj. until
Permanent Damages, Environmental -> Legislature )
Spur v. Del Webb (AZ) Nuisance (Compensated Injunction, Coming to Nuisance,
Public Interest, Foreseeability)
Willard v. 1st Church of
Christ (CA)
Easement (Grantor's Intent and Reservation to Third Party
Ok)
Holbrook v. Taylor (KY) Easement (License Becomes Irrevocable -> Estoppel,
Fairness)
Van Sandt v. Roystor
(KS)
Easement (Implication -> Necessity, Sewer System)
Othen v. Rosier (TX) Easement (Implication -> Necessity, Unity of Ownership,
Time of Severance)
Matthews v. Bay Head
(NJ)
Easement (Public Trust Doctrine -> Quasi-Public Entity,
Common Law actions not government so not a taking)
Brown v. Voss (WA) Easement (Implication -> Necessity, Balancing of Equities,
Fairness, Appurtenance and Intensity of Use, Unequal
Bargaining Power)
Pressault v. U.S. (1st Cir) Easement (Abandonment as Termination, Gov't Taking
Fee Simple)
Tulk v. Moxhay (Eng) Covenants (Notice Only for Burden to Run w/ Land, Privity
not Necessary unless for Benefit; trending away from that)
Sanborn v. McLean (MI) Covenants (Reciprocal Easement, Common Owner,
Certainty, Notice only requirement, Neg. Rest. Easement Doc
- applies to Com. Ownr)
Neponsit v. Savings
Bank (NY)
Covenants (Property Values = Touch and Concern,
American Rule Burden In Gross Runs w/ Land)
Hill v. Comm. Damien
Molokai (NM)
Covenants (Construction of Covenants, FHA restrictions - 3
Distinct Claims, Ambiguity can Void; Morgan's Final Notes -
Public Policy*)
Shelley v. Kraemer (US) Covenants (Racially Restrictive Covenants, Not Followed)
Western Land v.
Trusolaski (NV)
Covenants (Rest. Covenants, Fairness, Abandonment can't
be Sporadic)
Case List Policies - Main Points


Rick v. West (NY) Covenants (Unilateral Termination, Fairness, Certainty)
Pocono Springs v.
MacKenzie (PA)
Covenants (Can only abandon Fee Simple Absolute w/
imperfect title, some states allow)
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside
Village (CA)
HOA (Unreasonableness of Restrictions, Alienability,
Neighbors Uniformity and Expectations)
Taormina Theos. Com. v.
Silver (CA)
HOA (No restrictions based on philosophy/religion)
Village of Euclid v.
Ambler Realty Co. (US)
Zoning (Police Power of State, Reasonableness;
Comprehensive Plan, Board of Adj. or Board of Appeals,
and/or Archit. Board)
PA NW v. Zoning
Hearing Board (PA)
Zoning (Retro-Active Nonconforming Use, Against
Amortization-unfair in pre-exist. non-conforming use;
Dissent and most states in favor of...)
Commons v. Westwood
Zoning Board (NJ)
Zoning (Unreasonable Denial of Variance, Undue Hardship,
Can't Zone into Inutility)
Cope v. Inhabitants of
the Town of Brunswick
(ME)
Zoning (Special Exception, Need Reasons for Denial, No
Vagueness for Reviewing Criteria)
State v. City of Rochester
(MN)
Zoning (Rezoning, Flexibility, Rational Basis, 3 Methods to
Challenge: Quasi-Judicial, Incons. w/ Comp. Plan, and Spot
Zoning)
Fasano v. Brd of Cty
Comm. (OR)
Zoning (In Dissent -> Legislative Action/Large # of Ppl =
Arb & Capricious, Small Group Judicial action so judicial
review)
State ex rel. Stoyanoff v.
Berkeley (MO)
Zoning (Aesthetic Regulation is part of General
Welfare/Property Values)
Anderson v. Cit of
Issaquah (WA)
Zoning (Aesthetic Regulations must give Clear Guidance as
to what is acceptable)
Village of Belle Terre v.
Boraas (US)
Zoning (Household Composition, Protect Family Values if
not in violation of FHA)
Kelo v. City of New
London (US)
Eminent D(Public Purpose can be Future Public Use, Private
Use of if E.D. because of public interest -> economic
redevelopment)
Loretto v. Teleprmpter
(US)
Eminent D (Permanent Phys. Occ. Are all Takings)
Case List Policies - Main Points


Hadacheck v. Sebastian
(US)
Eminent D (Mitigating Nuisance Taking; see Lucas)
PA Coal Co. v. Mahon
(US)
Eminent D (Conceptual Severance, Economic Value, P v. P
Interest)
Penn Ctrl v. New York
(US)
Eminent D (Conceptual Severance, P v. P interest, Distinct-
IBE, Non-Conforming Use Doctrine)
Lucas v. South Carolina
(US)
Eminent D (100% Econ. Wipeout, Taking if back. princ. of
state law)
Palazzolo v. R. Island
(US)
Eminent D (Challenge Regulation Est. Prior to Purchase
Date)
Tahoe-Sierra v. Tahoe
Regional (US)
Eminent D (Moratorium on devel Taking, Conceptual
Severance/Time)