In re The Boston Beer Company Ltd. Partnership

In this trademark case, the Boston Beer Company unsuccessfully sought to obtain a trademark for "the Best Beer in America." It claimed that these words had become uniquely identified with its beer as a result of a expansive advertising campaign and sales averaging eighty-five million dollars per year. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examining attorney twice rejected the application on the grounds that it was merely a "descriptive term" and could not be registered as a trademark by anyone. The Patent and Trademark Office's Appeal Board agreed with the examiner that the term did not distinguish Boston Beer from other beers and as a form of "puffery" could not establish a secondary meaning. Boston Beer appealed to the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Appeal Board.

Matthews v. Freedman

Matthews designed and registered a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office for her "Someone Went to Boston and Got Me This Shirt Because They Love Me Very Much" T-shirt. Thereafter, Freedman began selling T-shirts with the slogan, "Someone Who Loves Me Went to Boston and Got Me This Shirt." Matthews filed a copyright infringement action in the U.S. District Court, which found in favor of Freedman, ruling that his T-shirt did not infringe upon the protectable elements of Matthews' T-shirt. Matthews appealed.

In affirming the lower court's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that in order to be successful in a copyright infringement case, a plaintiff must show that there was a copying of "constituent elements of the work that are original." Although the sentiments expressed on both T-shirts are similar, the idea expressed (love of a child) is not the type that is protected under the copyright laws. The lower court decision is affirmed.

Far West Modular Home Sales, Inc. v. Proaps

The plaintiff contracted to sell a modular home to the defendants. The home was delivered in two sections, mounted and secured on a concrete foundation by bolts and nails, and connected to all utilities. After a price dispute arose, the plaintiff filed an action in replevin to recover the property. Following a jury-waived trial, the court found for the plaintiff.

On appeal, the appellate court in Oregon reversed, holding that the modular home constituted a fixture on real property. The court examined three factors-adaptation (conceded by the plaintiff), annexation, and intent-and concluded that annexation and intent were established by the securing of the home to the foundation, the connection to all utilities, and the fact that it would cost $4,700 to remove the home and restore the land.

In re Estate of Clayton Gulledge

Clayton and Margie Gulledge, husband and wife, owned a house (Somerset) as tenants by the entirety. Upon Margie's death, Clayton remarried and, soon thereafter, created a joint tenancy in Somerset. The joint tenants were Clayton and his son Bernis. Clayton subsequently conveyed his interest in Somerset to his daughter Marion "in fee simple tenants in common." The heirs of Bernis brought this action alleging that upon Clayton's death, Bernis owned the entire property due to the joint tenancy that had been created. Marion argued that the conveyance from Clayton to her severed the joint tenancy between Clayton and Bernis. The trial court agreed with Marion, and an appeal was taken.

The appeals court, in upholding the lower court's decision, ruled that when Clayton conveyed his interest to Marion, the joint tenancy between he and Bernis was severed and instead a tenancy in common was established. Joint tenancy cannot exist unless there is unit of interest, title, time, and possession. The interests of Bernis and Marion were not created at the same time. The conveyance to Marion destroyed the joint tenancy. The court concluded that Marion and Bernis each own an undivided one-half interest in Somerset.

Dolan v. City of Tigard

Florence Dolan was a businesswoman in Tigard, Oregon. Dolan wanted to expand her store and applied to the City Planning Commission for approval. The commission eventually approved her application, but attached conditions that were unacceptable to Dolan. Dolan appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals because she believed the commission's conditions were unrelated to her proposed development. The board of appeals and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the commission, and Dolan successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court concluded that the nature and degree of the city's permit limitations had not been shown to be roughly proportionate to the amount of environmental harm caused by the proposed development. The city's insistence on these permit conditions would amount to a taking within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Gloria B. Lane v. W.J. Curry and Sons

Lane and Curry and Sons were adjacent landowners. Judith Harris was the owner of Curry and Sons. Lane sued Curry for nuisance because tree branches and tree roots coming from three large oak trees on Curry's property encroached upon and seriously damaged Lane's property. Lane, claiming that the trees were an actionable nuisance, filed suit after Harris refused to take full responsibility for fixing the problems. The trial court dismissed the case, concluding that Lane's only had one remedy-"self help." Lane, said the court, had the right to remove any branches or other plant-life that had intruded over, under, or onto her land up to the property line. Lane's appeal to the court of appeals was unsuccessful and she appealed further to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court reviewed Tennessee case law and examined how other states defined nuisance when confronted with facts similar to those in this case and adopted the approach taken in Hawaii. The Tennessee Supreme Court then reversed and remanded the case for a "determination of damages and other appropriate relief, such as ordering the nuisance abated. . . ."

Favorite v. Miller

The defendant located and excavated a fragment of a statue of King George III from the plaintiff's property without the plaintiff's knowledge or permission and then sold the fragment to the Museum of the City of New York. The plaintiff sued to recover the fragment.

The trial court found for the plaintiff, concluding that the statue had been "mislaid" by the British Loyalists and, thus, rightly belonged to the landowner. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed but on different grounds. It ruled that the defendant's status as a trespasser, and the fact that excavation was necessary to recover the fragment, defeated any claim the defendant may have had as a "finder."

Rick Kenyon v. Claude Abel

Claude Abel inherited a valuable oil painting worth between $8,000 and $15,000. This painting was packed by Abel's wife in a box that was supposed to be taken to the Abel's home in Idaho. The Salvation Army mistakenly picked up the box along with items that were being donated to the Salvation Army by the Abels and was offered for sale in its Thrift Store. That is where Rick Kenyon saw the painting and purchased it for $25.00. After Abel discovered the mistake and that Kenyon had possession of the painting, Able asked for its return. After Kenyon refused this request, Abel filed suit for replevin and conversion. The trial court ruled that Abel was entitled to possession of the property because he neither had the donative intent to make a gift of the painting to the Salvation Army, nor had he voluntarily relinquished possession of the painting to the Salvation Army. Kenyon appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court.

James W. Croskey v. Carl Leach

This is a bailment case in which the trial court found in favor of James Croskey because the auto mechanics to whom he brought his vehicle for the installation of an engine and transmission breached a mutual benefit bailment and violated the state's consumer sales practices law. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $9,682.80 in damages and the Leaches appealed to the state court of appeals. The appeals court affirmed the trial court.