1 / 35

FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4

FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4. Q1: LAWYERING (What Legal & Factual Research….?) Q2: SHORT PROBLEMS (Choose 3 of 4) Q3: OPINION/DISSENT Q4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER. ASSIGNMENT IV. Designed as Practice for Exam Q1 Todo List, Not Solution Not Whole Problem; Stick to Issues Given QS?.

mrodrigues
Télécharger la présentation

FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4 • Q1: LAWYERING (What Legal & Factual Research….?) • Q2: SHORT PROBLEMS (Choose 3 of 4) • Q3: OPINION/DISSENT • Q4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER

  2. ASSIGNMENT IV • Designed as Practice for Exam Q1 • Todo List, Not Solution • Not Whole Problem; Stick to Issues Given • QS?

  3. SCOPE OF EASEMENT PROBLEMS • Review Problem A (Santa & Elves) • Live Oak Arguments/Tuesday • Focus on 3 Blackletter Tests • Review Problem B (Satellite Dish) • Mango Arguments/Wednesday • Focus on Chevy Chase, Marcus Cable & Note Cases as Persuasive Authority

  4. WED: RECORDING ACTS with special guest appearances by Elizabeth Taylor & Melissa Ortiz DQ119 (ALL): S125 should be S150

  5. Section F Barbecue • Noon-7:00 pm Sunday • Key Info on Course Page • Check w Micki & Sasha for What to Bring • Limits on Space & Parking

  6. SECTION F SPRING COURSES • CONTRACTS (WIDEN) WF 8:00-10:00am • CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (JONES) TR 11:00am-12:20pm • US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I (IGLESIAS) M2:00-3:20pm & TR3:30-4:50pm • ELECTIVE WF 11:00-12:20pm

  7. Administrative Law Analysis of Evidence Environmental Law Family Law Housing Discrimination Labor & Employment Social Justice 1L SPRING ELECTIVES

  8. 1L Only Administrative Law Analysis of Evidence Family Law Social Justice MIXED Environmental Law Housing Discrimination Labor & Employment ELECTIVES: 1L Only v. Mixed

  9. Final Exam Only Administrative Law Environmental Law (Probably) Labor & Employment MIXED Analysis of Ev. (Projects) Family Law (Quizzes) Housing Disc. (Assnmts) Social Justice (Projects/Short Papers) ELECTIVES: Method of Evaluation

  10. CERTAIN Administrative Law Environmental Law Family Law NOT CERTAIN Analysis of Ev. (Rare) Housing Disc. (Maybe) Labor & Empl. (Probable) Social Justice (Rare) ELECTIVES: Later Availability

  11. Administrative Law Analysis of Evidence Environmental Law Family Law Housing Discrimination Labor & Employment Social Justice 1L SPRING ELECTIVES

  12. Criminal Administrative Law Analysis of Evidence Social Justice Business/Corporate Administrative Law Environmental Law Labor & Employment ELECTIVES: Career Focus

  13. Administrative Law Analysis of Evidence Environmental Law Family Law Housing Discrimination Labor & Employment Social Justice 1L SPRING ELECTIVES

  14. IMPLIED EASEMENTS • Easement by Estoppel • Easement by Implication • Easement by Necessity • Easement by Prescription

  15. Easements by Estoppel featuring POINCIANAS

  16. Easements by Estoppel An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where • The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property • 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence

  17. Easements by Estoppel An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where • The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property • 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence DQ113: Was the D’s reliance on the oral promise in Stoner reasonable? Was it detrimental?

  18. DQ114: Policy Arguments re Easements by Estoppel: Common Concerns include • Doctrine undermines Statute of Frauds • Claimants should make sure of legal rights before relying on mere license. • Neighbors don’t typically commit all arrangements to signed writings.

  19. DQ114 & Note 2: Should states allowEasements by Estoppel …? • Whenever there’s reasonable and detrimental reliance; • Only after compensation paid; –OR– • Never

  20. Policy Arguments re Easements by Estoppel Note 3: Nelson v. AT&T: Stronger or weaker case than Stoner for granting Easement by Estoppel?

  21. Note 4: How Long Does an Easement by Estoppel Last? Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” What does this mean … For an irrigation ditch?

  22. N.4: How Long Does E by Estoppel Last? Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” What does this mean … In the hypo in Note 4: House built in reliance on use of right of way, which created EbyE. House burns down. Can it be rebuilt using that right of way?

  23. EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION& NECESSITY featuring ROYAL PALM

  24. Emts by Implication & Necessity • Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel • E-by-I: Parties Intend that Prior Existing Use Should Continue • E-by-N: Split Creates Landlocked Parcel Needing Access • Same Facts Can Give Rise to Both

  25. EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY: • One parcel is split in two • Landlock: One resulting parcel is cut off from key access (e.g. to roads) by other parcel (alone or in combination with parcels owned by 3d parties). • At time parcels split, access necessary to enjoyment of landlocked parcel

  26. EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION: • One parcel is split in two • Prior Use of one part of parcel to benefit another part (“Quasi-Easement”) • Circumstances suggest parties intended to continue prior use after split NOTE: STATES VARY ON PRECISE FORMULATION

  27. EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION: • One parcel is split in two. At severance: • Prior use (Quasi-Easement) • Intent to continue prior use • *Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable • *Some degree of necessity * Some jurisdictions treat 4 & 5 as separate elements; some treat as evidence of intent

  28. NOTICE: E-MTS BY IMPLICATION: Need notice to bind subsequent purchasers • Actual Notice (Fact Q): Did buyer know about easement? • Inquiry Notice (Legal Q): Sufficient info to create duty in reasonable buyer to ask? • Usually can’t be notice from records b/c implied.

  29. NOTICE: E-MTS BY NECESSITY: • In theory, also need notice to bind • Court finding the easement necessary unlikely to find lack of notice.

  30. Williams Island & Elements • One parcel is split/ Prior use (Undisputed) • Intent to continue prior use: Evidence?

  31. Williams Island & Elements • One parcel is split/ Prior use (Undisputed) • Intent to continue prior use: Evidence? • Testimony • References to “Easements” in Deed • Overall Circumstances • Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable?

  32. Williams Island & Elements • One parcel is split/ Prior use (Undisputed) • Intent to continue prior use • Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable • Necessity: Court says yes; we’ll do later • Notice to Subsequent Purchasers?

  33. Williams Island & Elements • Notice to Subsequent Purchasers? • Court says both Actual & Inquiry • Unusually good evidence of both intent & notice

  34. Necessity Requirement EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION: • Usually reasonable necessity • Some states: strict necessity if implied by reservation (Florida not) EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY: • Most states: strict necessity

  35. Implied by grant v. Implied by reservation Parcel split into Eastacre and Westacre: Prior Use = Driveway from House on Eastacre across Westacre to main road. • Original owner sells East, retains West = Grant • Original owner sells West, retains East = Reservation • Original Owner Simultaneously Sells Both to Different People = Grant

More Related