Unit 2: Puritan Holding Co v. Holloschitz + 2 Problems & Sans v. Ramsey + 1 Problem

Submit in one document. 

1. IRAC Puritan Holding Co v. Holloshitz and choose and answer 2 Notes and Questions problems following the case. Problems may be answered in paragraph form but must include a statement of the relevant rule and your analysis. Sometimes the items following the cases are further commentary. You can choose one and write a reflection on how that further commentary relates to what we are learning.

2. Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club (here is only one problem after this case)

SOME NOTES ABOUT THE IRAC METHOD:

You have all learned to IRAC from various professors using various styles. All styles are acceptable to me so long as you articulate a clear understanding of what the case is about and why it’s important.

The last page of the syllabus provides IRAC instructions.

SAMPLE IRAC

A great issue statement follows this formula:

Issue = (party names) + (name of the rule of law from the “Rule” section”) + (a key fact or short factual statement)

Here is an example:

Facts and Procedural History: Osborne created a Christmas light display which included over 1,600,000 lights and structures depicting Mickey Mouse driving a train, reindeer, sleighs, and a carousel. Thousands of people came to visit the attraction. Neighbors, plaintiffs, complained about left over trash, traffic hazards, visitors parking on their front lawns, excessive noise and light, and inhibited access to their properties.

Issue: Can the homeowners recover from Osborne for the nuisance and trespass to their properties caused by the Christmas light display?

Rules: Trespass is the 1) intentional 2) interference with a property owner’s 3) reasonable enjoyment of their land.

Nuisance is the 1) unreasonable 2) interference with 3) a landowner’s use and enjoyment of their property.

Application:

The homeowners, plaintiffs, claim Osborne owes damages for the disturbances caused as a result of his light display. Visitors to the neighborhood entered upon the property owned by the plaintiffs where they discarded trash. These visitors willfully interfered with the homeowners’ enjoyment and ease of use of their property. Osborne’s display included over 1.5 million lights. It is reasonable that over 1.5 million lights would create a disturbance to neighboring property owners. The landowners were not able to enjoy their property as it was disturbed by the uninvited visitors.

Osborne claims he does not owe damages to the homeowners. He constructed the light display on his property. He argues he is allowed to do as he pleases with the structures on his property. He claims he is not responsible for the visitors’ actions.