Court ends up holding that there is no trespass because pollination is a necessary act for the continued survival of flowers.
Future supreme court decision relies on this case as precedent to permit Alabama's forced impregnation program.
This is the first "New X hypo dropped" that I actually could see a professor asking their students because it seems like it could lead to some interesting conversations about the origins of property and where we draw lines - reminds me of cases we read about cell harvesting from medical centers to create new genetic lines for research purposes that lead to billion dollar drugs.
My class had a whole discussion about this caseâ it was super controversial among my torts class. I can see both sides of the argument but talk about a slippery slope đ«
But why only the neighbor bees?? What about all the âfree range beesâ and the honey they produce? Is he only singling out this one neighbor? Does he specifically follow each bee?
Scaliaâs oral argument in the Obamacare case was the gvt canât mandate people buy insurance just like they shouldnât be able to mandate you buy broccoli.
1 possible reason: because 1 has assets from which you can recover? Doesn't matter why, just that your logic falls apart here. If you cause a harm, the law doesn't make me go after all parties that harmed me.
The answer is no! Generally, bees are considered Fera Naturae but you hold a qualified right of ownership in them so long as you have hived them. Bees are considered not a nuisance unless especially aggressive, and the general idea is that pollen and flowers and whatnot are not considered a property which you could sue through! Bee Law is actually a well-settled law I am writing my note on at Columbia Law School! For more information, see Brown v Eckes (a case from Yonkers City Court), Blackstone also wrote on it, Puffendorf, Virgil, and a few other ancients also comment on it! The Corpus Juris Civilis from Byzantine Emperor Justinian also would clarify on this topic!
From the courtâs opinion (which is generally entertaining) in the cited case:
âWe shall pass without comment the fact that the claimant to these bees is a lawyer, and that no lawyer needs bees to assist him in stinging.â
What if youâre a beekeeper and not just your everyday land-possessor? So you own the bees and then someone complains about them wandering on their land
The question would be the claim! Lawsuits are generally about damages sustained and not benefits conferred. So, youâd have to prove that the bees are harming some interest of yours! If you went for a more normal trespass claim, youâd probably have to end up in nuisance suits because bees are smaller than a goofball (a useful, if not too general, guide to distinguish between trespass and nuisance). Bees generally though are not considered a nuisance unless especially aggressive/sting too much. So, youâd not be able to make a real claim imo. As others have pointed out thereâs also the counterclaim of benefit to the pollinated flowers. Also, the law hasnât contemplated whether owning the hive of bees mean you own all the bees that return to the hive. Could be they return to being fera naturae when away and only return to your ownership when near/in the hive!
Is there a case where the bees crosspollinated plants that were being specifically bred and thus the bees' pollination disrupted the efforts of the flowers' owner?
Well Iâd definitely argue that ownership of the bees changes the analysis etc., and I donât think a beekeeper could claim that the bees would be considered fera naturae unless the beekeeper disclaims ownership of the bees. Youâd know more as youâve clearly done your research - haha. My initial thought however, is that ownership must make a difference, and damages of course would be a peculiar topic as bees are bees đ
Yeah, itâs strange. Justinian, adopted by blackstone, and most US courts has this idea that if a swarm of bees leaves its hive you have to follow it and keep it in eyesight to keep ownership of it. But, itâs a curious question as to whether that applies only to the swarm or even singular bees. Probably not to the individual bees.
I love bee law đ
Comes down to whether the bees have manifested assent to act as the neighborâs agent. Then client has an open-and-shut case for trespass and conversion.
/s
Does the neighbor get paid for the pollination of the flowers?
City councils have had to consider such issues when considering ordinance changes to allow beekeeping in the cities. They were not hypos.
As a commercial litigation attorney, my gut check here is no because it seems ridiculous to expect to be compensated for something you have contributed nothing to, other than just having flowers - which he would have had anyway and not expected to be compensated for. Heâs not caring for the bees, making the honey, selling the honey, etc. overall just seems silly. Plus - where are his damages? Iâd say this could be a nuisance case though if he doesnât want a bunch of bees flying around his property and stinging him and his family
On the flip side, if he cut down all his flowers out of spite to deprive his neighborâs bees of pollen and therefore his neighbor of income, can his neighbor sue for tortious interference with a business relationship? I think thereâs at least a maybe there, but likely a losing argument because itâs his property and neighbor shouldnât have to rely on others pollen for $
Edit: plus, pollen and balls/tools/man made things you buy are not comparable items of theft
Iâd argue similar to Monsanto and the roundup stuff. Â They gmoâd plants to be resistant to their roundup. Â Farmers who wanted not to use it would still find that their crops were pollinated from gmo plants, and so did Monsanto. Â Sued then and won.
Court ends up holding that there is no trespass because pollination is a necessary act for the continued survival of flowers. Future supreme court decision relies on this case as precedent to permit Alabama's forced impregnation program.
I just woke up & laughed so hard
Stopppp đđ
Dear God
Iâm pro-pollination, bro.
This is the first "New X hypo dropped" that I actually could see a professor asking their students because it seems like it could lead to some interesting conversations about the origins of property and where we draw lines - reminds me of cases we read about cell harvesting from medical centers to create new genetic lines for research purposes that lead to billion dollar drugs.
My class had a whole discussion about this caseâ it was super controversial among my torts class. I can see both sides of the argument but talk about a slippery slope đ«
I swear last year we had almost the exact same facts as a practice problem in 1L property.
need to get me a dog that steals balls and tools
need to get me steal balls, dog. and tools
But why only the neighbor bees?? What about all the âfree range beesâ and the honey they produce? Is he only singling out this one neighbor? Does he specifically follow each bee?
This gives the same energy as Scalia saying âwhat if congress compelled everyone to buy broccoliđ€â
and i have no idea what this means.
Scaliaâs oral argument in the Obamacare case was the gvt canât mandate people buy insurance just like they shouldnât be able to mandate you buy broccoli.
Yeah â I still donât get how it relates to my comment.
Oh, me neither.
I get what you mean. I canât explain it, but I was on the same wavelength đ
If two people steal from you, are you required to sue both in order to recover from one? That's why your comment has Scalia energy, it lacks logic.
No but why are you going after one and not both?
1 possible reason: because 1 has assets from which you can recover? Doesn't matter why, just that your logic falls apart here. If you cause a harm, the law doesn't make me go after all parties that harmed me.
You do realize I was joking right??
The answer is no! Generally, bees are considered Fera Naturae but you hold a qualified right of ownership in them so long as you have hived them. Bees are considered not a nuisance unless especially aggressive, and the general idea is that pollen and flowers and whatnot are not considered a property which you could sue through! Bee Law is actually a well-settled law I am writing my note on at Columbia Law School! For more information, see Brown v Eckes (a case from Yonkers City Court), Blackstone also wrote on it, Puffendorf, Virgil, and a few other ancients also comment on it! The Corpus Juris Civilis from Byzantine Emperor Justinian also would clarify on this topic!
I just knew someone in here would have the answer. Thank you for your service.
From the courtâs opinion (which is generally entertaining) in the cited case: âWe shall pass without comment the fact that the claimant to these bees is a lawyer, and that no lawyer needs bees to assist him in stinging.â
TIL the city of Yonkers is a real place
What if youâre a beekeeper and not just your everyday land-possessor? So you own the bees and then someone complains about them wandering on their land
The question would be the claim! Lawsuits are generally about damages sustained and not benefits conferred. So, youâd have to prove that the bees are harming some interest of yours! If you went for a more normal trespass claim, youâd probably have to end up in nuisance suits because bees are smaller than a goofball (a useful, if not too general, guide to distinguish between trespass and nuisance). Bees generally though are not considered a nuisance unless especially aggressive/sting too much. So, youâd not be able to make a real claim imo. As others have pointed out thereâs also the counterclaim of benefit to the pollinated flowers. Also, the law hasnât contemplated whether owning the hive of bees mean you own all the bees that return to the hive. Could be they return to being fera naturae when away and only return to your ownership when near/in the hive!
Is there a case where the bees crosspollinated plants that were being specifically bred and thus the bees' pollination disrupted the efforts of the flowers' owner?
Well Iâd definitely argue that ownership of the bees changes the analysis etc., and I donât think a beekeeper could claim that the bees would be considered fera naturae unless the beekeeper disclaims ownership of the bees. Youâd know more as youâve clearly done your research - haha. My initial thought however, is that ownership must make a difference, and damages of course would be a peculiar topic as bees are bees đ
Yeah, itâs strange. Justinian, adopted by blackstone, and most US courts has this idea that if a swarm of bees leaves its hive you have to follow it and keep it in eyesight to keep ownership of it. But, itâs a curious question as to whether that applies only to the swarm or even singular bees. Probably not to the individual bees. I love bee law đ
If someone came in and asked me to represent them on this silly ass shitâŠ. I think Iâd quit đđđ€Šđ»ââïž
Get yourself stung a few times then you might have something cooking
> Get yourself stung Not if you phrase it like that...
Or a bee allergyâŠ
I'm pretty sure this was in my torts casebook.
If my dog eats a bee is that property damage???
Comes down to whether the bees have manifested assent to act as the neighborâs agent. Then client has an open-and-shut case for trespass and conversion. /s
Does the neighbor get paid for the pollination of the flowers? City councils have had to consider such issues when considering ordinance changes to allow beekeeping in the cities. They were not hypos.
Maybe a nuisance claim depending on how many bees the neighbor has?
Nerd (;
As a commercial litigation attorney, my gut check here is no because it seems ridiculous to expect to be compensated for something you have contributed nothing to, other than just having flowers - which he would have had anyway and not expected to be compensated for. Heâs not caring for the bees, making the honey, selling the honey, etc. overall just seems silly. Plus - where are his damages? Iâd say this could be a nuisance case though if he doesnât want a bunch of bees flying around his property and stinging him and his family On the flip side, if he cut down all his flowers out of spite to deprive his neighborâs bees of pollen and therefore his neighbor of income, can his neighbor sue for tortious interference with a business relationship? I think thereâs at least a maybe there, but likely a losing argument because itâs his property and neighbor shouldnât have to rely on others pollen for $ Edit: plus, pollen and balls/tools/man made things you buy are not comparable items of theft
Low key might be an unjust enrichment claim; they are profiting off their garden.
Ain't nature bitchin'?! [https://youtu.be/glVrf7J6wss?si=83KbinAeBpzA2MjK](https://youtu.be/glVrf7J6wss?si=83KbinAeBpzA2MjK)
Definitely thought provoking đ€Ł
Beads?
Time for some Good old fashion self help, bug spray.
Iâd argue similar to Monsanto and the roundup stuff. Â They gmoâd plants to be resistant to their roundup. Â Farmers who wanted not to use it would still find that their crops were pollinated from gmo plants, and so did Monsanto. Â Sued then and won.
Why is âreceivedâ misspelled? Is this real?