|
|
| Re: LIC Yuppies get steamed (804693) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIC Yuppies get steamed |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jul 4 13:13:35 2009, in response to Re: LIC Yuppies get steamed, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 4 11:55:18 2009. but don't expect the LIRR to fight this if they don't have to, and with the increasingly leftward leaning politicians YOU PEOPLE elect (along with the judges they appoint), it's only a matter of time before they get it shut down.LIRR has been on the wrong side of fights before (Port Jefferson Branch electrification is obviously one). But this tussle in LIC isn't one of those. As for the comment about judges on the left, let's keep in mind the very wise paper that Guido Calabresi - one of the great legal geniuses of our age, former Dean of Law at Yale, founder of the Law and Economics movement, and since 1994 probably the judge furthest left on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which covers NY, CT, and VT) - wrote with his then-student Douglas Melamed the famous article, 'Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: one view of the cathedral' in 1972. The genius of the article was to point out that we decide on the entitlements in the law. And so consider a simple, abstract case: you have an allegation of nuisance by P against D. Abstractly, there are four different ways that entitlements could be structured. First, we have the two kinds of what were termed property rules: either D gets to continue on with the activity, or P gets an injunction against that activity. This was traditionally where the law was at. Then, we have the two liability rules: D can continue as is but pays damages, or P gets the injunction but has to indemnify D for loss. Now when you fill up this doubly bifurcating path with actual facts, you understand fully the options available. Any case from LIC would be a lot like a case decided about the same time as the aforementioned classic article, called Spur Industries v Del Webb Development. In that case, you had the developer as plaintiff, called P above, (Del Webb), suing to enjoin a cattle feedlot in AZ from its business, because P was building a retirement community next door, and obviously cattle feedlots aren't convenient neighbors. The court ruled that P could easily foresee the conflict, 'P came to the nuisance', but not D (same thing goes in LIC - the Ps there bought condos built there over a hundred years after the D (LIRR) first set up shop), so P could have its injunction if P indemnified D for its loss, which you will note is a liability rule. Obviously much more can be said concerning the underlying theory, but this isn't a torts class, so I will stop here, having shown what I set out to show. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|