 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Burke v. Smith: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Michigan Supreme Court |citation=37 N.W. 838,69 Mich. 380 |date=April 20, 1888 |subject=Property |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/burke-v-smith-897017577 |case_text_source=v lex }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/burke-v-smith |source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee }} |case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video |service=YouTube |id=_pF...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=April 20, 1888 | |date=April 20, 1888 | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
|facts=* Mr. Burke built 2 houses on 1 parcel in [https://www.kalamazoocity.org/Home 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 fence'''s between his & Burke's parcel. | |||
|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 won. | |||
* | |||
|issues=May a property owner use the property in a way to intentionally injure a neighbor's rights if that use is undertaken strictly for malicious purposes & provides the owner with no benefit? | |||
|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. | |||
|holding=No; a property owner may not use the property in a way to intentionally injure a neighbor's rights if that use is undertaken strictly for malicious purposes and provides the owner with no benefit. | |||
|judgment=Affirmed | |||
|comments=* 2 justices dissented in this ruling. | |||
|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 | ||
Latest revision as of 20:38, 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
- Burke sued Smith seeking to remove Smith's spite fences.
- Burke argued that he had an easement of light & air.
- Burke won.
Issues
May a property owner use the property in a way to intentionally injure a neighbor's rights if that use is undertaken strictly for malicious purposes & provides the owner with no benefit?
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.
Holding
No; a property owner may not use the property in a way to intentionally injure a neighbor's rights if that use is undertaken strictly for malicious purposes and provides the owner with no benefit.
Judgment
Affirmed
Comments
- 2 justices dissented in this ruling.
