Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v.
Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
114 So.2d 357
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
hotel corporations challenged an order of the trial court (Florida),
which temporarily enjoined appellants from continuing with the
construction of a 14-story addition to a hotel owned and operated by
appellants.
FACTS: Appellee hotel corporation brought a suit to enjoin appellant hotel corporations from continuing with the construction of a 14-story addition to a hotel owned and operated by appellants. Appellee claimed that the addition cast a shadow over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of a hotel owned and operated by appellee. The trial court granted appellee a temporary injunction, holding that no one had the right to use his property to the injury of another. Appellants sought review of the injunction.
HOLDING:
The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in applying the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
ANALYSIS:
The court reasoned that the maxim meant only that one had to use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another. The court said that because there was no legal right to the free flow of light and air, appellants were not using their property to injure appellee's lawful rights. The court found, therefore, that appellee failed to establish a cause of action against appellants.
CONCLUSION: The appellate court reversed an order that granted a temporary injunction to appellee hotel corporation. The court held that the trial court erred in finding that appellant hotel corporations used their property to the injury of appellee.
FACTS: Appellee hotel corporation brought a suit to enjoin appellant hotel corporations from continuing with the construction of a 14-story addition to a hotel owned and operated by appellants. Appellee claimed that the addition cast a shadow over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of a hotel owned and operated by appellee. The trial court granted appellee a temporary injunction, holding that no one had the right to use his property to the injury of another. Appellants sought review of the injunction.
HOLDING:
The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in applying the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.
ANALYSIS:
The court reasoned that the maxim meant only that one had to use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another. The court said that because there was no legal right to the free flow of light and air, appellants were not using their property to injure appellee's lawful rights. The court found, therefore, that appellee failed to establish a cause of action against appellants.
CONCLUSION: The appellate court reversed an order that granted a temporary injunction to appellee hotel corporation. The court held that the trial court erred in finding that appellant hotel corporations used their property to the injury of appellee.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment