Moakley v. Eastwick case
brief
---
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?
666 N.E.2d 505
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff appealed the
decision of the Superior Court Department (Massachusetts) that
entered judgment in favor of defendant church, in plaintiff's action
that sought a declaration of his rights, injunctive relief, and the
assessment of damages under the Art Preservation Act, Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 231, § 85S (1994 ed.).
FACTS: Plaintiff constructed a 68-foot long concrete wall that could not be removed, to keep the artwork intact. Defendant acquired the property and removed a portion of the artwork. Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction that prohibited defendant from causing any further physical defacement of the wall. Plaintiff contended that his artwork was afforded protection under the Art Preservation Act (Act), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85S 1994 ed.). The trial court held that plaintiff's work was protected but stated the application of the statute to defendant would offend art. Plaintiff appealed.
ANALYSIS:
The supreme court found that plaintiff's artwork was not afforded protection because its creation preceded the enactment of the protective legislation. The statute did not have retroactive application because plaintiff's work was immovable. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to damages on his tort claims, and the judgment was modified to make an appropriate declaration of rights.
CONCLUSION: The supreme court affirmed decision of the trial court that entered judgment in favor of defendant church, when the court found plaintiff's work was not afforded protection under the Art Preservation Act because the work of art was created prior to the enactment of the protective legislation and there was no retroactive application.
FACTS: Plaintiff constructed a 68-foot long concrete wall that could not be removed, to keep the artwork intact. Defendant acquired the property and removed a portion of the artwork. Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction that prohibited defendant from causing any further physical defacement of the wall. Plaintiff contended that his artwork was afforded protection under the Art Preservation Act (Act), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85S 1994 ed.). The trial court held that plaintiff's work was protected but stated the application of the statute to defendant would offend art. Plaintiff appealed.
ANALYSIS:
The supreme court found that plaintiff's artwork was not afforded protection because its creation preceded the enactment of the protective legislation. The statute did not have retroactive application because plaintiff's work was immovable. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to damages on his tort claims, and the judgment was modified to make an appropriate declaration of rights.
CONCLUSION: The supreme court affirmed decision of the trial court that entered judgment in favor of defendant church, when the court found plaintiff's work was not afforded protection under the Art Preservation Act because the work of art was created prior to the enactment of the protective legislation and there was no retroactive application.
---
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