DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Property
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 13--------------------------------------------------
       State v. Shack
       By: kangaroo Date: January 26, 2011, 6:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FACTS: Defendants entered the plaintiff’s property to aid
       migrant farmworkers that were employed and housed there.  One
       defendant was an attorney for migrant workers and the other was
       there to administer medical aid.  The Plaintiff refused to let
       either defendant speak to a migrant worker unless he was
       present.  When the defendants argued that they could legally
       speak with the workers in private, the plaintiff ordered them to
       leave the premises.  A state trooper was called in to remove
       them, but would not do so until a written complaint was
       formulated.
       PROCEDURAL FACTS:  The municipal court found for the plaintiff,
       but the court of appeals reversed the judgment and the matters
       were remanded to the county court with directions to enter
       judgments of acquittal.
       ISSUE:  Can the operator, on his lands lawfully stand between
       the migrant workers and those who would aid them? Does the
       trespass statute apply to the actions of the defendants?
       RULE: The ownership of real property does not include the right
       to exclude governmental services available to migrant workers.
       ANALYSIS:  The defendants did not act unlawfully by attempting
       to come in contact with the migrant workers on the plaintiff’s
       land.  Tedesco did not have the right to exclude the government
       officials from performing duties lawfully given to them.
       Property rights are limited by the idea that they serve human
       values.
       CONCLUSION:  The defendants invaded no possessory right of the
       plaintiff and therefore their conduct was beyond the reach of
       the trespass statute.
       Private property rights are exclusive but NOT absolute.
       -
       if it impedes acts passed by Congress, his rights of exclusion
       are NOT absolute
       *****************************************************