I. Issue Does Mike Manuel have any remedy against NineTen, Inc. for intentionally creating a private nuisance in his neighborhood?
II. Brief Answer Manual can likely recover against NineTen for creating a private nuisance in his neighborhood. NineTen likely acted with the intent of interfering with the use and enjoyment of the land. They also most certainly substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of the land. Last, the nature and duration of the interference caused by NineTen was likely enough to constitute an unreasonable.
III. Facts Mike Manual lives near downtown Lawrence in an area with residential homes, apartments, businesses, churches and schools. NineTen has created a new Monster Hunt video game that everyone is playing and Mike’s neighborhood has a lot of these virtual monsters. The car and pedestrian traffic in his neighborhood has increased substantially because of the game. He has also experienced lack of available parking, people
…show more content…
To recover for a private nuisance claim, four variables must be met: acted with intent of interfering with the use and enjoyment of the land; there was some interference with the use and enjoyment of the land of the kind intended, although the amount and extent of that interference may not have been anticipated or intended; the intrusion was substantial; and the duration of nuisance was enough to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. NineTen likely acted with the intent because they knew Monster Hunt was creating crowds in residential areas, and continued their game. There was most certainly an interference with the use and enjoyment of the land and the interference was substantial. The duration of the nuisance was likely enough to constitute an unreasonable interference because a reasonable person would likely find that the benefit does not outweigh the harm done to
For this assignment, we learned that Maurice Clarett filed a case against the NFL where he argued that the NFL’s three-year rule acted as an unreasonable restraint in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. On the other hand, the NFL argued that its three-year rule was covered from the antitrust laws by the nonstatutory labor exemption. First, the case was reviewed by the district court which concluded that the NFL's eligibility rules violated antitrust laws by requiring the player to wait at least three years before entering the NFL draft and that the eligibility criteria was not immune from those antitrust laws. The court favored Clarett making him eligible for the 2004 NFL Draft.
Throughout the City of Fort Worth, one of the predominant crime problems is the proliferation of illegal game rooms. While there have always been minor issues with these locations, the past six years have seen a dramatic increase in their presence. Game rooms are defined as “a building, facility or other place where one or more amusement redemption machines are present”, per attorney Jack Davis, in the text of a lawsuit filed in the Tarrant County District Court obtained from the Fort Worth Star Telegram (Jack L. Davis and Stephannie Lynn Rylie v. The City of Fort Worth and David Cooke, 2015). A conservative estimate of the ubiquitous nature of these premises would be in excess of 200 locations within the city limits.
Riverbank, a large city, has a district with a huge problem. Grant’s Valley, although booming with business, is a quaint and historic part of Riverbank that the residents want to keep that way. The business aspect of Grant’s Valley has an ever growing need for more space for tourists to park and there is just too much traffic for the area to withstand. Riverbank’s historically quaint Grant’s Valley would benefit from the destruction of the unused junior-high on 35th and Princeton and the new construction of a one hundred space parking lot and a new park. This would attract more people and lessen the unattractive curb appeal of the parking lot in the residential area of Grant’s Valley that the residents want
The issue is what duty of care did C.D. Management owe to Richard. Mounsey v. Ellard, held that a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors. 363 Mass. 693, 707 (1973). The Court stated “that there is significant difference in the legal status of one who trespasses on another's land as opposed to one who is on the land under some color of right-such as a licensee or invitee.” Id at n.7. Although the general rule for care owed to trespassers is to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. Schofield v. Merrill 386 Mass. 244, 245 (1982). Mounsey allowed for the possibility of exceptions when dealing with trespassers, “The possible difference in classes of trespassers is miniscule compared to the
Pet_Net had been off to a great start, but as of late, they have been under some scrutiny. Complications with two of Pet_Net’s dog sitters have placed the company in uncomfortable situations. The first event occurred while a Pet_Net dog sitter was taking a clients dog for a walk in a nearby park. At the moment, with nobody in sight, the sitter let the dog off of the leash. Moments later, a mother and child entered the park. The dog overexcitedly greeted the small child, knocking him over, and breaking his arm. The family is now pressing charges of negligence against Pet_Net and the sitter. The next event occurred while a Pet_Net sitter was looking after a dog at the client’s residence and discovered that the dog looked ill. The sitter took the dog to the vet, but incurred over $2,000 for the emergency service, which the owner is claiming they will not pay. It is
Christopher Osinger harassed and intimidated his ex-girlfriend under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A (2) (A) and 2261(b) (5). He sent sexually explicit content of his ex-girlfriend to her family, friends, and coworkers without her permission, and tried to communicate with V.B in many occasions even after she told him to stop trying to contact her. Seeking to the demission of the charges, he stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (2) (A) was unconstitutional because free speech was being prohibited and it is protected by the First Amendment. He challenges his conviction for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and faces facial charges to 18 U.S.C. § 2261A as unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct. He maintains a sentence of 46 months imprisonment.
The first ozoner to be charged because of noise disturbance was at Guy Douthwaite’s ozoner, which could be heard one mile away. This violated an ordinance made in the drive-in’s city, Los Angeles, which made it a misdemeanor to have a stadium that sound could be heard fifty or more feet away. Douthwaite argued to the Supreme Court that this was discriminating drive-ins but the court did not agree, and they sent him to municipal court for trial. On June 4th, 1935, Douthwaite was going to have the choice of a fine of $250 or going to jail for ninety days but the case was suspended as long as it didn’t reoccur. A separate case in Detroit was filed and dropped once a reporter went to the drive-in to see how bad the sound was and he said that you could barely hear anything at fifty feet away from the ozoner. Another significant lawsuit which was in Pennsylvania with complaints about noise from the Bethal Township. Residents said that you witnessed the nerve-destroying noise from one mile away and they couldn’t sleep until the films were over at one in the morning. The defense pleaded that the drive-in was just like open dance floors and that they spent $30,000 on constructing the theatre. Spending half a million dollars on their homes was the plaintiffs’ argument. These cases were only three out of the one hundred drive-ins that went to court in 1940 for restraining orders. To
Robert Baltovich was wrongly convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, in Scarborough, Canada. He was arrested on November 19, 1990, and charged for first-degree murder. On March 31, 1992, he was convicted of second-degree murder. Finally, on April 22, 2008, he was found not guilty of the murder.
In Smith v Littlewoods (1987) it was held that the Littlewoods were not liable, as they did owe a care of duty they did not breach their duty, as they were unaware of the previous incidents. property in front of the cinema , to begin with there was no relationship between the vandals and the defendants.And they did not have a duty to prevent a fire started by vandals. The duty on the occupier would be too wide if they were responsible for the damage caused to the
The Marion County Board of Commissioners have been working with community leaders and the Marion County Animal Services department to develop a plan to help eliminate the problems. The local animal control ordinances have been evaluated and revised in hopes of preventing future problems before they develop. The first step was to create an annual “dangerous canine breed” registration fee of $500 for local dog owners that would discourage ownership of dangerous breeds by county residents. Marion County Commissioner Jim Payton stated that, “there is no reason for the public to be put at risk by these animals. We need to make it as stringent as we possibly can to protect the public." (Thompson, “County drops ‘1 free kill’”).
Parrish filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) against Luckie in his individual and official capacities, and against then Police Chief Bruce in his official capacity. The jury found Luckie liable in his official capacity and awarded damages of $150,000. The jury also found Chief Bruce liable in his official capacity and awarded damages of $50,000. The district court rejected appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and this appeal followed. The City raises several issues on appeal.
Legal studies is branched into many different sectors. One of the fundamental legal subjects is tort law. Tort law is known as the law that corrects civil wrongs. There are many different kinds of torts including tort of trespass, negligence and torts to land. Tort victims are entitled to claiming remedies, damages and injunctions. This essay will examine a case where the issues in hand are mainly negligence and occupier’s liability.
The case presented is that of Sam Stevens who resides in an apartment. He has been working on an alarm system that makes barking sounds to scare off intruders, and has made a verbal agreement with a chain store to ship them 1,000 units. He had verbally told his landlord, Quinn, about his new invention and Quinn wished him luck. However, he recently received an eviction notice for the violation of his lease due to the fact that his new invention was too loud and interrupting the covenant of quiet of enjoyment of the neighbors and for conducting business from his apartment unit.
The construction site was in a downtown area of a large southeastern city, criss-crossed with city streets, utilities, and immediately adjacent to mid-rise and high rise buildings. Nearly all of the work was required to be constructed within temporary piling structures to limit settlement of adjacent structures. The construction contract called for seven phase releases of work areas and nine completion milestones, each milestone has its own liquidated damages penalty. The construction contract was valued at $10 million, and the duration was 545 calendar days. Following the completion of the work, the contractor filed a claim for $5.5 million and 1.1 million in interest. The authority subsequently denied the claim and the contractor, in accordance with the contract, filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association. Following the contractor’s issuance of the demand letter, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute through negotiation” (Ray,
Brittin was not detained and decided to call a private tow company to remove the vehicle from the park. However due to conflicting statements between both he and Wellman, I issued Brittin a trespass warning. Brittin acknowledged, and he signed the trespass warning. I advised Brittin that he would be arrested if her returned to Waterfront Park. All of Wellman's belongings were left with Brittin per her request.