Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings

(1984)

Supreme Court of California - 676 P. 2d 584, 35 Cal. 3d 564

tl;dr:

A landowner obtains a prescriptive easement when he openly, notoriously, and continuously uses the property of another in an uninterrupted manner for more than 5 years. A landowner who encroaches on the easement is required to remove the encroachment.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingWarsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings case brief facts & holding

Facts:The plaintiff and the defendant owned adjacent properties. The plaintiff...

Holding:The court held that the plaintiff had obtained a prescriptive...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: RICHARDSON, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The court ruled that a valid prescriptive easement does not require compensation and it is improper to charge the easement owner for removing encroachments. The plaintiffs established a 25-foot wide prescriptive easement over the southern portion of the defendant's property by proving open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for an uninterrupted period of five years. The court found substantial evidence supporting the establishment of a prescriptive easement over the westerly portion of the parcel, despite the defendant's argument. A court of equity may issue a mandatory injunction to protect and preserve an easement, including the removal of an obstruction already erected, even if the cost of removal is high, particularly if the encroaching structure was intentionally erected with knowledge of the claimed easement. The court has discretion to determine if such a remedy is appropriate, and willfulness on the part of the defendant in violating the restriction after warning by the complainant is a ground for equitable relief by mandatory injunction that is greatly stressed by the courts. The lower court erred in requiring compensation.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: GRODIN, J., Concurring.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The concurring judge disagrees with the majority's reasoning for the law of prescriptive easements, but believes that any changes to the law should be made by the Legislature rather than the courts. The judge acknowledges that the Legislature has already modified the prescriptive easement doctrine with Civil Code section 1008, which allows property owners to prevent easement acquisition by posting a sign. The judge affirms the trial court's judgment and defers any further changes to the Legislature.

Dissenting opinion, author: REYNOSO, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting judge argues that the majority's decision to deny compensation for a prescriptive easement is unjust and that the court has the power to invoke equitable doctrines of fairness. The judge suggests that the court's equitable powers should be used to impose a condition that fair market value be paid before a prescriptive easement is declared and protected. The court's power is not restricted, and it can impose a requirement that fair market value be paid by a trespasser who is granted a prescriptive easement. The court's decision to allow a prescriptive easement in this case is similar to eminent domain, and the fairness of this decision is questioned. The trial court needs to determine a fair amount of compensation that the plaintiffs should pay the defendant for taking their property, based on the property's market value, subtracting any damages that the plaintiff suffered.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings

Chat for Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings
brief-652
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.