Property

Office: 7105. Best to catch him between 1:00PM-3:00PM M, T, R, F.

262-1695

wlchurch at wisc at edu

There are upper-class tutors for this course. Review sessions start a few weeks in. Tutorial sessions meet once per week.

Exam will cover both recital (highlighted) and non-highlighted cases. Recital will be based on the seating chart, so you can be very prepared, and have advance warning. There may be a little at-random calling to respond to the reciter.

The final grade is the exam, and only the exam. No participation, no recital grade.

The final is like a recital: your argument will be assailed. You can opt out of recital.

The exam is 100% of the grade. In a 5-credit course, that's a big deal. It will be open book: you can take in anything you can carry (at the very least, bring your TOC, materials, notes...). You can't bring library books, but you can bring books. Usually, there are 3 questions. It's usually 3 hours long. Usually there are about 5pp of reading. Main kinds of questions:

1. Virtually certain to happen: start with a case (maybe even one from the materials). React to the case, from a specific posture (e.g., you are a lawyer in the case: Pierson v. Post is appealed to the WI Law School Supreme Court), and you need to write a brief (e.g., for plaintiff). Or maybe you're the court: write a dissent (i.e., not an advocate, but an evaluator). This is the most favored type of question.
2. Question designed to force the use of precedent. I.e., name the five cases in the materials that you think are the most relevant precedent in support of Pierson v. Post. So look for wild animal cases, or cases that repeat the policy argument in another context. Or distinguish case A from case B. Or how can you argue that each of cases X, Y, and Z is applicable to Pierson v. Post. To make one case bear on another, you need to show the policy concerns they have in common,
There are word limits on the exam: probably 600 words per question; maybe 800.

You can't cram the ability to make policy arguments. As we go through the course, think about how prior cases bear on the ones you're preparing for any given day. Think about writing a couple of 600 word essays like question type 1, above.

Class Notes

• Week 1: January 22, 2008
• Week 2: January 28, 2008
• Week 3: February 4, 2008
• Week 4: February 11, 2008
• Week 5: February 18, 2008
• Week 6: February 25, 2008
• Week 7: March 3, 2008
• Week 8: March 10, 2008
• Week 9: March 24, 2008
• Week 10: March 31, 2008
• Week 11: April 7, 2008
• Week 12: April 17, 2008
• Week 13: April 21, 2008
• Week 14: April 28, 2008

Case Briefs

1. Pierson v. Post: 1/23/08 - fox chasing
2. NY Times Articles about Barry Bonds HR
3. Young v. Hitchens: 1/24/08 - fishnets
4. State v. Shaw: 1/28/08 - theft of fish from nets
5. Llewellyn on Determing the Rule of a Case
6. Dapson v. Daly: 1/28/08 - deer hunting
7. Keeble v. Hickeringill: 1/29/08 - tortious interference; positioning a case in a favorable legal context
8. Hannah v. Peel: 1/30/08 - finding property on someone else's estate
9. Armory v. Delamire: 1/31/08 - finders prevail against all but rightful owners
10. The Winkfield: 1/31/08 - From whom do awards take?
11. State v. Cox: 1/31/08 - Statutory construction and prohibition
12. Zech v. Accola: 2/4/08 - Treasure-trove and positioning a case in a favorable legal context
13. Chung Fook v. White: 2/5/08 - Counter-intuitive immigration statute
14. People v. Lubinda: 2/5/08 - Court can't override legislature just because the penalty seems harsh
15. Sialubi v. People: 2/5/08 - Court finds a statute inapplicable in order to obtain a less harsh result
16. Mulinga v. People: 2/5/08 - Court decides that intent wasn't proven at trial, in order to obtain a less harsh result
17. Breitenbach v. Schoen: 2/5/08 - Formalities of gifts, the four unities.
18. In re Staver's Estate: 2/7/08 - When does a gift take place?
19. In re Roosevelt's Will: 2/7/08 - "Constructive delivery" as an end-run around form
20. Smith's Estate: 2/11/08 - How do we know if a trust exists?
21. McMahon v. Standard Bank & Trust Co.: 2/11/08 - Formalities of trusts
22. Auric v. Continental Casualty Company: 2/12/08 - Malpractice liability for failing to observe will form
23. Mrs. Chake Avakian v. Mr. Artin Avakian: 2/12/08 - Formalities of wills in Ethiopia are set aside.
24. Fox v. Snow: 2/12/08 - If you want a trust, make a trust
25. Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.: 2/12/08 - Intellectual property
26. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes: 2/14/08 - Property is sacred.
27. Morse v. Curtis: 2/18/08 - Need to record mortgages.
28. Gerruth Realty Co. v. Pire: 2/19/08 - vague financing clause in offer to purchase.
29. Bishop v. Beecher: 2/19/08 - Missed payment and equity of redemption on a land contract.
30. Will v. Mill Condominium Ass'n: 2/21/08 - Redemption of condo by defaulting buyer.
31. United States v. Stadium Apartments, Inc.: 2/21/08 - Federal pre-emption of state redemption laws.
32. Ewing v. Burnet: 2/25/08 - Adverse possession via gravel removal.
33. Aragon v. Brown: 2/25/08 - Restrictive covenant governing pre-fab homes.
34. Hunter v. McDonald: 2/26/08 - Spiteful speedbumps on an easement.
35. Hall v. Liebovich Living Trust: 2/26/08 - Solomonic justice regarding easements at Lake Geneva.
36. Shelley v. Kraemer: 2/26/08 - Racist housing covenants
37. Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.: 2/26/08 - Artists' moral rights
38. Haas v. Haas: 2/27/08 - Messed up will gets honored anyhow.
39. Taylor v. Canterbury: 2/27/08 - Form for ending joint tenancy
40. Jezo v. Jezo: 2/27/08 - Unequal partitioning of marital property
41. Musa v. Segelke & Kolhaus Co.: 2/27/08 - Liens against one person don't survive when joint tenancy transfers ownership to the survivor
42. McKnight v. Balisides: 2/28/08 - Laches, adverse possession, and intestacy
43. LeMere v. LeMere: 2/28/08 - Form in unequal division of marital property
44. Brandt v. Brandt: 3/3/08 - Post-nuptial agreement to keep automotive fortune away from gold-digging professor husband
45. Paradine v. Jane: 3/3/08 - You have to pay the rent even if Prince Rupert invades.
46. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.: 3/4/08 - Did the brewery commit waste by grading around the mansion?
47. Baierl v. McTaggart: 3/4/08 - Landlords can't stick tenants with their legal fees.
48. Dawson v. Goldammer: not covered in class, not briefed - we'll honor a Baierl-style illegal contract if it suits the tenant's interests.
49. Pierce v. Norwick: 3/5/08 - Attorney's fees radically outweigh damages in security deposit dispute.
50. Lindsey v. Normet: 3/5/08 - Constitutionality of eviction procedure in OR
51. Bruckner v. Helfner: 3/6/08 - Almost an implied warranty of habitability, way back in 1929!
52. Poyck v. Bryant: 3/6/08 - Secondhand smoke in a leased-out condo
53. Pines v. Perssion: 3/6/08 - WI Law students and implied warranty of habitability.
54. Brown v. Southall Realty: 3/10/08 - Leases entered in violation of housing code are void.
55. Javins v. First National Realty Corp.: 3/10/08 - The standard citation for Implied Warranty of Habitability.
56. Posnanski v. Hood: Not covered in class - No implied warranty in Milwaukee.
57. Gombo v. Martise: 3/11/08 - Conditions can be really deplorable.
58. Reitmeyer v. Sprecher: 3/11/08 - Tort liability
59. Antwaun A. v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Company: 3/12/08 - lead poisoning
60. Thomas v. Mallett: 3/13/08 - Suing the manufacturers of lead paint
61. Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.: 3/12/08 - Security in the apartment complex
62. Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments: 3/13/08 - Resident manager attacks tenant.
63. Brown v. Maxey: 3/13/08 - Kids are setting fires in the halls...
64. City of St. Louis v. Brune: 3/24/08 - How important is bathing?
65. Edwards v. Habib: 3/25/08 - Retaliatory eviction
66. Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation: 3/25/08 -
67. Alexander v. HUD: 3/26/08 - Relocation benefits for people displaced by HUD orders
68. Joseph v. San Francisco Housing Authrority: 3/27/08 - punitive damages against public housing
69. Loyisville Metro Housing Authority v. Burns: 3/27/08 - no punitive damages against public housing
70. Simmons v. Chicago Housing Authority: 3/27/08 - Public housing authority liability for crimes on premises
71. Mitchell v. HUD: 3/27/08 - It's harder for public housing to terminate leases than private
72. Buchannan v. Warley: 1917 case declaring that it's unconstitutional for Louisville KY to have ordinances requiring residential segregation.
73. United States v. Starrett City Associates: 3/27/08 - Quotas for racial integration
74. Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey: 3/31/08 - Refusal to take section 8 tenant
75. Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson : 3/31/08 - Barring children; attempted solicitation of snacks
76. Vance v. Bakas: 4/1/08 - not renting to day care provider
77. Pfaff v. HUD: 4/1/08 - HUD goes crazy when a large family is denied a lease
78. Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs: 4/1/08 - penalties for egregious racial discrimination
79. Wisconsin ex rel. Sprague v. Madison: 4/1/08 - Can sub-letters discriminate about roommates?
80. Housing Council of San Francisco v. Roommates.com: 4/1/08 - Discrimination by search engine
81. Garrett v. Escondido: 4/1/08 - penalties for renting to illegal aliens
82. NAACP v. American Family Insurance Co.: 4/2/08 - redlining in insurance makes housing loans unavailable
83. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty: 4/2/08 - The classic zoning case: devaluation of property
84. Teton County v. Crow: 4/3/08 - Building too big a mansion without a permit.
85. Martin v. San Francisco: Can a municipality force a homeowner to get environmental review of changes to the interior of a home? No. What owners do with their interiors doesn't have serious environmental implications.
86. Geo-Tech Reclamation Industries, Inc. v. Hamrick: 4/7/08 - Allowing NIMBY in statutes is unconstitutional
87. Emmett McLoughlin Realty v. Pima County: 4/7/08 - Can't delegate zoning authority to individuals
88. Villange of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation: 4/7/08 - Discriminatory local zoning
89. NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel: 4/7/08 - Discriminatory zoning is prohibited
90. Southern Burlington NAACP v. Township Of Mount Laurel: 4/7/08 - Seriously, we will take action.
91. Asian Americans for Equity v. Koch: 4/8/08 - Gentrification of Chinatown and the Mt. Laurel doctrine.
92. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center: 4/9/08 - Zoning discriminates against the retarded
93. Oconomowoc Residential Programs v. City of Milwaukee: 4/9/08 - zoning violates ADA, and the reasons are a farce
94. Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore: 4/10/08 - Zoning affects expansion of church, and therefore free exercise of religion
95. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff: 4/10/08 - breaking up large estates in HI
96. Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit: [I am absent] - Taking land and giving it to GM.
97. Kelo v. New London: 4/14/08 - Displacing homes to make way for parks, etc.
98. Norwood v. Horney: 4/14/08 - At least once in history a taking has been void for vagueness.
99. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York: 4/15/08 - This isn't a taking; it's just like zoning.
100. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission: 4/16/08 - The government has to pay if it wants this easement; it can't extort via permit withholding.
101. Dolan v. City of Tigard: 4/17/08 - Easement for greenbelt and bike path
102. Bennis v. Michigan: 4/17/08 - Criminal forfeiture of an automobile used in an act of prostitution
103. Erlich v. Culver City: 4/17/08 - Tennis court shortage and extraction of "mitigation fee."
104. League of Oregon Cities v. State of Oregon: 4/21/08 - defeat of constitutional amendment to require compensation for regulatory reductions in property values.
105. MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services: 4/21 - replacement amendment is allowed to stand.
106. Tahoe Preservation Council v. Tahoe: 4/21/08 - moratoria on development are not per se takings
107. Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes: 4/21/08 - buckwheat for butterflies and denial of development gets you damages
108. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel: 4/21/08 - retroactive liability for miners healthcare is an unconstitutional taking
109. Morris v. United States 4/22/08 - former exam question: at what point does red tape become a taking?
110. Nordlinger v. Hahn: 4/22/08 - Prop 13 and equal protection... turns out it's rationally based.
111. Pennell v. San Jose: 4/22/08 - Rent control is not unconstitutional per se
112. Resolution Trust Corp. v. New York: 4/22/08 - RTC can't override state-created property interests
113. Hornstein v. Barry: 4/23/08 - it's OK to require 50% approval from residents before condo conversion
114. San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco: 4/24/08 - housing conversion fees are rational enough to stand scrutiny; taking money is different from taking real property
115. Evans v. Meriweather: Not covered in class - You can't take all the water from a stream.
116. Gillen v. Neenah: 4/24/08 - The environmental imperative; private attorneys general
117. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas: 4/28/08 - Fancy Long Island suburb doesn't want college kids; protecting the environment is OK here...
118. Just v. Marinette County: 4/28/08 - Cooperative federalism; plaintiffs flout the law; landowners' rights are not unlimited.
119. Zealy v. Waukesha: 4/29/08 - Peat farmer adversely zoned for conservancy (should have recorded a deed saying he could develop); it doesn't amount to total deprivation, though, so it's not a taking
120. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement: 4/29/08 - Nuisance; judgment once and for all, no injunction; we need cement I guess
121. Prah v. Maretti: 4/30/08 - Solar panels on adjoining lots; Prah wins the right to pursue a nuisance cause of action, but it never amounts to a jury trial-- he gives up.
122. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Communities: Not covered in class - Endangered Species Act construed so taking protective species includes harming their habitats
123. In re Southview Associates: Not covered in class - You can't destroy deer habitat in VT

Miscellany

• Major policies in the course