Saturday, December 1, 2012

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes case brief and notes

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

About: TRESPASS. RIGHT TO EXCLUDE and CT. ENFORCEMENT TO PROTECT PROP. RIGHTS as oppose to preserve value (b/c difficult to show / prove loss in value – elim. this req’m) AND

If trespass is not volitional, should there be punitive damage? [Is it about intent or actual dmg.?] Possibly about people respecting others prop. rights and rt. to preserve prop. rt. no matter what. OR about shunting behavior and encouraging people to transact (sometimes it’s a cost, sometimes a benefit)

Court: encourages autonomy and for parties to transact. Don’t have to show actual harm

Damages: Court award nominal and punitive damage b/c intentional trespass; doesn’t award compensatory b/c no actual dmg.

a)Ex.: transfer to u something that’s valuable to u but not so much to me.
Ps seeking: Money payment for trespass on property and peace of mind (enforcing right to keep prop. free from trespass) and to be made whole for loss, and autonomy (respect to individual property right) to do what they want w/ property, and have protection by threat for future trespassing and right to have domain over own property and punitive damage (to punish adversary).

Damages: Nominal (in name only) ordered.

Court: OK to have punitive w/o compensatory … Also, need to be intentional tort to have punitive w/o compensatory damage b/c intentional trespass (volitional act) is behavior that can be altered w/ penalization.

b) Makes it not be attractive to violate property right.


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

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...