Adams v. Gillig case brief

Adams v. Gillig case brief summary
92 N.E. 670 (1910)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant buyer challenged a judgment of Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (New York) affirming an order upon the referee's report in favor of respondent seller granting her recission of the parties' contract and deed.

CASE FACTS
The record showed that the buyer stated to the seller that he desired to purchase a portion of her vacant lot for the purpose of building a dwelling or dwellings thereon. The seller's true intention was to build a garage on the lot.

DISCUSSION

• On appeal from the seller's claim against the buyer, the court determined that the buyer must have known that if he induced the seller to convey to him such portion of the lot, it would injure the seller to an extent in excess of the full consideration to be paid by him. 
• The court held that the buyer's intent was a material existing fact in the case and that the seller's reliance upon such fact induced her to enter into a contract that she would not otherwise have entered into. 
• The court found that the buyer's statement was so made for the purpose of inducing the seller to convey to him the lot, and that the buyer made the statement falsely, fraudulently and purposely. 
• The court held that any contract induced by fraud as to a matter material to the party defrauded was voidable, thus the conclusion of law that the seller was entitled to a rescission of the contract and deed was the necessary and logical result of the facts found.

CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. case brief

Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. case brief summary
602 N.W.2d 215 (1999)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellants sought review from a judgment entered by the Marquette Circuit Court (Michigan) that awarded damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations that emanated from an iron mine.

CASE FACTS
Appellants sought review from a judgment entered by the circuit court after a jury verdict awarded damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations that emanated from an iron mine. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded.

ISSUE
The issue on appeal was whether Michigan recognized a cause of action in trespass stemming from invasions of these intangible agents.

DISCUSSION

• No published decision of an appellate court of this state was directly on point. 
• The traditional view of trespass required a direct entry onto the land by a tangible object. 
• The court reaffirmed for Michigan the traditional requirements for a cause of action in trespass, and held that the law of trespass in Michigan did not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that a complaint alleging damages resulting from these irritants normally sound instead in nuisance.

CONCLUSION
Judgment reversed and remanded. Law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations; complaint alleging damages resulting from these irritants normally sound instead in nuisance.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Woodrick v. Wood case brief

Woodrick v. Wood case brief summary
1994 WL 236287 (1994)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff remainderman challenged the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), which denied her request for an injunction to prohibit defendant holder of a life estate from removing a barn that partially rested on the parcel of land in which the remainderman had a remainder interest. The trial court order the life estate holder to pay the remainderman the value of the barn if it was torn down.

CASE FACTS
The barn was located partially on the lot in which the remainderman had an interest and partially on a lot owned by the life estate holder and her son. The barn was in disrepair and the life estate holder proposed to tear it down. The remainderman filed a complaint against both the life estate holder and her son, but later dismissed the claims against the son.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial court denied the injunction but ordered the value of the barn paid to the remainderman if it was torn down.

DISCUSSION

• The court found that an injunction was an available remedy to prevent an action of waste. 
• The court found that waste was an abuse or destructive use of property. 
• The court found that the removal of the barn would actually improve the value of the property, so its removal did not constitute waste. 
• The court found that paying the value of the barn to the remainderman would compensate her for its removal and did not justify waste, since the removal of the barn was not a waste of the property.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, Pacifica case brief

Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, Pacifica case brief summary
498 P.2d 987 (1972)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Defendant appealed a decision from the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California) that quieted title in a property in favor of plaintiffs.

CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs purchased property that a former owner had conveyed subject to an easement for automobile parking during church hours. Plaintiffs' deed did not mention the easement.

ISSUE
Whether a grantor may, in deeding real property to one person, effectively reserve an interest in the property to another.

DISCUSSION/HOLDING
The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and held that such a reservation vested the interest in the third party.

CONCLUSION
Judgment reversed in favor of defendants. The grantor, in deeding the property to plaintiff's seller had vested an interest in the property to defendant.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. case brief

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. case brief summary
971 F.2d 1395 (1992)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff entertainer appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, granting summary judgment to defendant advertising agency in plaintiff's action alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights under state and federal law.

CASE FACTS
Defendant advertising agency prepared a series of advertisements for defendant electronic company. One particular ad depicted a robot dressed in a wig, gown and jewelry, selected to resemble plaintiff's hair and dress. Unlike the other celebrities used in the advertising campaign, plaintiff neither consented to nor was paid for the ads. Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights under state and federal law. Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the right of privacy claim, but reversed the judgment on the right to publicity and the Lanham Act claims. 
• The court held that for the advertising to be effective, it must evoke the celebrity's identity.
• Defendants attempted to elevate its ad above the status of garden-variety commercial speech by pointing to the ad's parody of plaintiff. 
• Defendants' argument was unavailing. 
• Unless the first amendment barred all right of publicity actions - and it did not, then it did not bar the case. 
• The court reasoned that plaintiff pleaded claims sufficient to go to a jury.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's right of privacy claim, but reversed the judgment on the right to publicity and the Lanham Act claims because plaintiff pleaded claims sufficient to go to a jury.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

White v. Brown case brief

White v. Brown case brief summary
559 S.W.2d 938 (1977)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Petitioners, devisee and executrix, sought review of an order by the lower appellate court (Tennessee), which affirmed a judgment of the trial court in favor of respondent heirs that the testator devised a life estate in her house to petitioner devisee, with a remainder to respondents. Petitioners argued that testator's will devised a fee simple and that a restraint on the sale of the house was void as against public policy.

CASE FACTS
Testator left a holographic will in which she devised her house to petitioner devisee. However, the will contained language forbidding the sale of the home. Petitioners, devisee and executrix, filed suit against respondent heirs, alleging that the will devised the house to petitioner devisee in fee simple absolute, and that any restraint on alienation was void as against public policy. Respondent argued that the restraint on alienation evinced an intent by the testator to devise a life estate with a remainder in fee simple absolute in respondents.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial court held that the will devised a life estate with a remainder in respondents, and the lower appellate court affirmed.

DISCUSSION

• The court reversed, stating that Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 32-301, 64-501 provided that a fee simple absolute was passed unless the testator clearly intended to devise a life estate. 
• A fee simple absolute was presumed even in the absence of words of inheritance, if there was no language that could be construed to create a remainder. 
• Thus, the restraint on the sale of the house was insufficient to overcome the presumption that a fee simple had been devised, and testamentary restraint on alienation was void.

CONCLUSION
The court reversed the order of the lower appellate court affirming a judgment in favor of respondent heirs that the testator devised a life estate in her house to petitioner devisee with a remainder in fee simple to respondents. The restraint on alienation of the home devised to petitioner devisee did not evidence a clear intent to pass a life estate and was insufficient to overcome the presumption that a fee simple interest was conveyed.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.