Includes all rights that have value and all the interests that a person has in it.
Bundle of Sticks
Property rights are a collection of seperate rights bound together, but are still separable.
Public Interest and Property Rights
Sentell v. New Orleans
Sentell v. New Orleans
∏ brought suit for the value of a female dog who was run over by the ∆'s train. Statute stated that the dog could be property if it was registered with the assessor; placed on the assessment rolls; and the value recovered couldn't be more than the assessed value of the dog. Statute also said that no dogs could run loose in the city limits. Court ruled that there was no case.
Land Restriction Access
In general the rule is that ownership of land doesn't include the right to bar entry to government services and title to land doesn't include control over the people that work on the land.
Kirchberg v. Feenstra
Suit was brought by wife against husband and to retain attorney husband took out a mortgage on the house, didn't pay, and the attorney foreclosed. She filed suit and challenged the constitutionality of the statute that gave husband the right to do so, it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that the statute should be abolished because it was gender based discrimination.
Finders Keepers-Common Law Rule
Applies if the property has never been owned by anyone
Assumes the property has an owner, but awards generous fee. To have title, they must show that the owner abandoned the property usually publicly by notice of some sort.
Right to publicity
The right to capitalize on the commercial exploitation of celebrities and the right to exclude others from doing it
Property In Ideas
The idea must be novel and original, but can also be created by contract
For the unique manner of expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Provides for fair use which allows a 3rd party to use the material without violation if the use is reasonable
An invention must have a social utility, must be novel and show invention
Holmes v. Hurst
A deceased author granted publishing rights of his volumes separately to a magazine for a fixed term. After this term the magazine then published all of the volumes together as a book. Suit was brought and the court ruled in favor of the magazine.
Holmes v. Hurst
When an author permits his work to be published either separate or all together he has lost all copyrights.
...nor shall private property be taken, for public use, without just compensation
Right to exclude
Concept of the Right to Exclude is not an absolute right
Kaiser Aetna v. United States
Developer took a pond and widened it for the exclusive use of his development community with the approval of the Army engineers. The dispute arose when the developer denied public access to the pond (now marina). The government alleged that the improvements to the pond made it "navigable waters" for the use of the federal government as per the Commerce Clause (constitution). Court ruled that the marina was not "navigable waters" and even if it was, the government could not come in and take the property rights from the developer/community without just compensation.
Public Trust Doctrine
State governments act as trustees over navigable waters and certain lands to protect the public's right to them.
An unprivileged physical invasion of property possessed by another.
Under the commerce clause of the Constitution US has ownership of the navigable waters and when the acquire ownership of it they don't have to use Eminent Domain or pay full value for it.
Public Forum Doctrine
The idea that the government or quasi-municipality has control of the property
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins
A group of high school students were kicked off the mall property for petitioning its customers. This is a case about whether the free speech rights in the 1st amendment trump the property owner's right under the 5th and 14th amendments. The court ruled that allowing the students to petition did not constitute a "taking" and there is nothing to say that the allowance will have any monetary effect on the mall. The court affirmed the previous court's decision that the students are allowed to petition on the mall's property within the times allowed by the mall owner.
Public Use Doctrine
Public use is defined by the government and not by the land owner and also consider if the decision rationally relates to a conceivable public purpose.
Berman v. Parker
Redevelopment Act determined that some areas of DC were injurious to public health and they acquired all rights to land located in the area which appellants owned a parcel of and objected. Court ruled that it was within the powers of the government to beautify a community, but they had to compensate the appellants for taking their land.
Kelo v. City of New London
City approved project to revitalize distressed city which included property owned by the appellants which were condemned because they happened to be in this area. The court found that the acquisition of the property served a public purpose and was for a public use to satisfy the 5th amendment even though the development consisted of hotels, restaurants, retails residences, and office space. The courts also concluded that it was not their job to second guess the city's boundary decisions when they acquire property. Reaffirms Berman v. Parker
A property can receive special benefits as a result of the government taking part of it.
Partial Taking General Rule
The government can deduct specific benefits from severance damages to the remainder of the property but not from the value of the part taken
Partial Taking Federal Rule
A landowner may receive no compensation if special benefits are more than the value of the land physically taken.
Police Power and Noxious Use
The regulation of property by the local sovereign
Mugler v. Kansas
A prohibition upon the use of property for purposes that are declared by the government to be injurious to the health , morals, or safety of the community can't, in any sense be considered a "taking" requiring just compensation.
If it harms the community, the police power is not a taking
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
City passed ordinance prohibiting the petitioner from firing the bricks at his brickyard which was not a nuisance per se, he considered this to be discriminatory and a violation of his constitutional rights. The court noted that he was not deprived of all of the use of his brickyard, only the firing part. He could still use the soil, and make the bricks, but he couldn't fire them. Court ruled that this was a plausible exercise of the police power and that it was done to protect from harm and therefore is not a "taking".
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon
M owned home and surface rights, PC reserved the right to mine underneath the house, but an Act later made it illegal to mine under the houses if it caused them to subside. The coal company was enjoined from completely clearing all of the coal from under the houses and the coal company stated that it was taking. Curt said that if a regulation goes too far, it's a taking, but there is no test for "too far."
Penn Central v. City of NY
Developer and owner of Penn Central Station wanted to build a 52 or 55 story office building on top of the historical grand central station. After bringing two variations of plans, the building committee said no. Suit was brought alleging a taking. Court ruled that the police power wasn't a taking because Penn Central still had use of the property; they just couldn't exploit it in the way they wanted to. The court used the balancing test and considered the economic impact of the regulation the extent it interfered with investment backed opportunity; and the character of the regulation (i.e. a physical invasion or adjustment for the common good).
Ad Hoc Test
1) Economic Impact (extent of decrease in value)
2) Interference with investment backed expectations
3) Character of regulation (physical invasion v. adjustment for the good)