Although mowing grass can be a factor in demonstrating “possession” of property, it cannot (by itself) prove exclusion of the record owner or “actual possession” sufficient to obtain title by adverse possession. Hovet v. Dahl, 9 N.W.3d 699 (N.D. 2024). Nor is it sufficient to prove “acquiescence” to a change in the border between the properties.
In an upsetting but not surprising decision, the Sixth Circuit has held that damage to property caused by police in the course of their duties, including finding and apprehending those who committed or are suspected of having committed a crime, is not compensable as a “taking” of property within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Slaybaugh v. Rutherford Cnty., 2024 WL 4020769 (6th Cir. 2024). In this case, a mother and son were in her house and she could not convince him to give himself up to the police. She exited the home and they fired 35 tear gas cannisters into the home, causing $70,000 of damage to the house and the contents inside. The insurance company would not cover the loss because it was “self-inflicted” and the owner’s suit against the city failed because the longstanding rule is that the police cannot be hampered in …
Police damage to house not compensable under the takings clause Read More »
A federal court in Washington has awarded damages of $400 million to The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community to be paid by a railroad company (BNSF Railway Company) for knowingly exceeding the scope of a railroad easement on the tribe’s property. Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Rwy. Co., 2024 WL 3027911, 2024 US. Dist. LEXIS 107314 (W.D. Wash. 2024). Federal common law governs a claim for trespass on Indian lands. The railroad company breached its easement agreement by unilaterally increasing the number of trains and the number of cars crossing tribal land without the tribe’s written consent. The court had found that the railroad company breached a right-of-way easement agreement with the tribe, and that the trespass was “willful, conscious, and knowing throughout the trespass period.” Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Rwy. Co., 664 F.Supp.3d 1218 (W.D. Wash. 2023). In the remedies phase, the court held that disgorgement of …
In a somewhat surprising case, the Idaho Supreme Court has held that an irrigation system that oversprays to cover land and which intrudes onto neighboring property can ripen into a prescriptive easement if the water sprays intrude on the neighbor’s land for the statutory period. Chester v. Wild Idaho Adventures RV Park, LLC, 519 P.3d 1152 (Idaho 2022).
Normally, criminal trespass is proper only if someone knows they are on someone else’s land and have no permission or other right to be there. But Vermont allows prosecution for criminal trespass even when someone should have known they were not welcome, at least when the owner complies with state law by posting a sign prohibiting entrance. In such a case, it does not matter that the entrant was not aware of the sign. State v. Richards, 256 A.3d 94, 215 Vt. 1 (2021).
The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a person under a trespass statute criminalizes trespass with the intent to commit a hate crime, State v. Geddes, 998 N.W.2d 166 (Iowa 2023). See Iowa Code §716.8(3); §729A.2. The defendant targeted homes with rainbow flags or decals and taped anonymous notes saying “burn that gay flag”. The Court rejected the argument that the defendant had a first amendment right to place stickers on someone else’s home. The court found that the statute did not criminalize speech but conduct: trespassing because of the owner’s sexual orientation or association with persons of a certain sexual orientation.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the criminal trespass conviction of a person who refused to leave a school board meeting when she entered without a mask knowing that it was required and when she refused to leave. State v. Bossi, 2024 WL 336446 (N.H. 2024).
The Delaware Supreme Court has held that Monsanto (the manufacturer and seller of PCBs) can be held liable for public nuisance and trespass when it knew PCBs caused environmental harm but continued to sell them anyway. State ex rel. Jennings v. Monsanto Co., 299 A.3d 372 (Del. 2023). While the trial court had held that Delaware did not recognize nuisance claims against product manufacturers or sellers, the supreme court reversed since the company had actively misled its customers and the public as to the dangerousness of the chemicals it was selling.
In a straightforward application of the ruling in Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon city could not punish homeless people for “camping” on public property and using bedding supplies, such as blankets or pillows or sleeping bags, while doing so, when there were no available beds in city homeless shelters. Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, 50 F.4th 868 (9th Cir. 2023). The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing someone for engaging in actions like sleeping that are necessary to human life when there is no place where they are legally entitled to do those things. Punishing someone in such circumstances effectively penalizes them for the status of being homeless and that violates rule of law norms. “The anti-camping ordinances [here] prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in activity they cannot avoid,” the court explained. Nor can the city avoid this by criminalizing “using …
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. N.C. Farm Bureau Federations, Inc., 2023 WL 2172219 (4thCir. 2023) In a very complicated ruling, the Fourth Circuit has struck down North Carolina’s “ag-gag” law that prohibited employees from engaging in “undercover animal-cruelty investigations and publiciz[ing] what they uncover” on the ground that it violates their First Amendment free speech rights. The North Carolina Property Protection Act (the “Act”) prohibits “intentionally gain[ing] access to the nonpublic areas of another’s premises and engag[ing] in an act that exceeds the person’s authority to enter.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §99A-2(a). The court suggests that North Carolina can achieve any legitimate goals it has in protecting private property by focusing on the interests that trespass law protects in the exclusive possession of land. Unauthorized access can be prohibited but that cannot be conditioned on regulating speech that is protected by the First Amendment. PETA challenged four provisions …
Fourth Circuit strikes down North Carolina’s “ag-gag” law under the First Amendment Read More »
