Emma. wrote: her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?
is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too
The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.
I said per se taking because public was going on his land.
But I also got completely fucked up on this, because I think it was July 2010 essays about when 10 acres of a 100 acre lot were taken in their entirety? or partially? or how do you analyze that taking? Anyway, the model answers had completely fucking different interpretations of how the takings clause plays out. So that came in my head and I was like, shit, I don't know.
Also re: the fence and easement one. Fuck. I couldn't decide between trespass because he had to go on his land to do it, or that he was privileged. I went with privileged for fucking with his easement? I don't know. I can't even remember.