Leading Cases

Question 1

Pierson v. Post (N.Y. 1805) — held?

Accepted Answer

Pursuit alone does not confer property in a wild animal; occupancy requires actual capture or mortal wounding with continued pursuit and deprivation of natural liberty. (Source: Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. 1805))

Question 2

Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) — held?

Accepted Answer

Under the discovery doctrine, Native American tribes could not convey title to private persons; title acquired from the federal government prevailed. (Source: Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823))

Question 3

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) — held?

Accepted Answer

Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants is state action violating the Equal Protection Clause. (Source: Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948))

Question 4

Kelo v. City of New London (2005) — held?

Accepted Answer

Taking private property for a city's economic development plan satisfied the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment. (Source: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005))

Question 5

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) — test?

Accepted Answer

Regulatory takings are assessed by the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. (Source: Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978))

Question 6

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) — held?

Accepted Answer

A regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use is a categorical taking unless background principles of property or nuisance law already prohibited the use. (Source: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992))

Question 7

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) — held?

Accepted Answer

A permanent physical occupation authorised by government (cable equipment on a building) is a taking, however small. (Source: Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982))

Question 8

Javins v. First National Realty Corp. (D.C. Cir. 1970) — held?

Accepted Answer

A warranty of habitability is implied in residential leases, and breach can be raised as a defence to non-payment of rent. (Source: Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970))

Question 9

Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Ariz. 1972) — held?

Accepted Answer

A feedlot that became a nuisance to a new retirement community was enjoined, but the developer who "came to the nuisance" had to indemnify the feedlot's costs of moving. (Source: Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 108 Ariz. 178 (1972))

1.Pierson v. Post (N.Y. 1805) — held?

2.Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) — held?

3.Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) — held?

4.Kelo v. City of New London (2005) — held?

5.Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) — test?

6.Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) — held?

7.Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) — held?

8.Javins v. First National Realty Corp. (D.C. Cir. 1970) — held?

9.Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Ariz. 1972) — held?