-
Surocco v. Geary case brief summary
F: D, Geary, in his role as Alcalde (Mayor) of SF, burned down the P’s house in order to keep a fire from spreading through the city. TC ruled in favor of P. The D appealed, saying he had the authority to destroy the building because it was necessary to preserve other buildings.
I: whether someone can be liable for damages, if he destroys someone’s house in good faith and out of necessity.
R: individual who destroys another party's property in good faith, and under necessity of preventing harm to the community, is not liable for damages to the otwner of property destoryed.
City couldn’t be sued.
Even though trespass is established, the defense of necessity is recognized by the court.
C: reversed
Co: If building is most valuable thing among the city, and chances of surviving is high, then blowing up that building is for public wealth? Who knows?
Case briefs for law students, lawyers, and others researching case law. I created many of these briefs in law school and periodically update them from time to time. My goal has been to build a one stop resource center for law students!
Friday, October 10, 2014
Surocco v. Geary case brief summary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I Write For Law Firms, Let Me Write Content For Your Law Firm!
Are you looking for a legal content writer for your law firm? If so, I can help! My rates are competitive. I am knowledgeable on a wide are...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
https://www.pexels.com/photo/coworkers-talking-outside-4427818/ Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...
-
Case Brief: Brisboy v. Fireboard Paper Products Corporation Court: Michigan Supreme Court Citation: 429 Mich. 540, 418 N.W.2d 650 (1988) D...
No comments:
Post a Comment