Burke v. Smith: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
* Burke planned to rent out the 2 houses on his parcel.
* Burke planned to rent out the 2 houses on his parcel.
* Smith built 2 11-foot '''spite fence'''s between his & Burke's parcel.
* Smith built 2 11-foot '''spite fence'''s between his & Burke's parcel.
|procedural_history=* Burke sued Smith seeking to remove Smith's spite fences.
|procedural_history=*Burke sued Smith seeking to remove Smith's spite fences.
* Burke argued that he had an [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/easement-of-light-and-air easement of light & air].
*Burke argued that he had an [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/easement-of-light-and-air easement of light & air].
*
|arguments=* Burke argued that the spite fences lowered his property values.
* Smith argued for his own privacy; he argued that he didn't want anyone to look into his windows.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/burke-v-smith-897017577
|link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/burke-v-smith-897017577

Revision as of 20:26, March 4, 2024

Burke v. Smith
Court Michigan Supreme Court
Citation 37 N.W. 838,69 Mich. 380
Date decided April 20, 1888

Facts

  • Mr. Burke built 2 houses on 1 parcel in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
  • Burke's houses were less than 2 feet away from Mr. Smith's parcel.
  • Burke planned to rent out the 2 houses on his parcel.
  • Smith built 2 11-foot spite fences between his & Burke's parcel.

Procedural History

Arguments

  • Burke argued that the spite fences lowered his property values.
  • Smith argued for his own privacy; he argued that he didn't want anyone to look into his windows.

Resources