Saturday, December 1, 2012

Keeble v. Hickeringill case brief

Keeble v. Hickeringill
Property Law Case Brief

Subject: Disturbance to land/Loss of Property.

Case Overview:

Keeble (P) sued after Hickeringill (D) interfered with the operation of a decoy pond for catching ducks by firing guns to scare the ducks away.

Case Facts:
Keeble owned a decoy pond designed to catch ducks. Hickeringill intention- ally fired guns near the pond to scare away any ducks that might have landed at the pond. Keeble sued for damages.

May the owner of a decoy pond recover damages for interference with his use of that decoy pond?

The owner of a decoy pond may recover for such interference.

The owner of land may use that land for any purpose he or she desires. Here, Keeble has chosen to profit from his land by catching ducks using a decoy pond. Hickeringill may not intentionally hinder the use of that land. The award, however, should compensate Keeble for the disturbance to his land rather than the loss of property. In order to recover for the loss of property, Keeble would have to prove how many ducks he lost as a result of Hickeringill’s actions. Proving such a fact is impossible because Keeble cannot say with certainty how many ducks he would have caught if Hickeringill had not interfered.

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...