Limiting Ownership

Eric R. Claeys

doi:10.1017/9781108951395.015

9 - Limiting Ownership

from Part III - Property Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 April 2025

Eric R. Claeys

Show author details

Eric R. Claeys: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

When natural rights justify ownership, the justification is only a prima facie justification. Ownership may justly be limited when it seems unlikely in practice to serve people’s interests in acquiring and using ownable resources. Each of the four elements of natural property rights highlights limits on ownership, and this chapter surveys a range of doctrines illustrating the relevant limits – limits on the scope of property in air columns via aerial trespass doctrine; adverse possession; doctrines enforcing limits on malicious conduct and abuse of right; remedial defenses for undue hardship in property disputes; public commonses; the necessity privilege in tort; rights of way to access public commons; common carrier doctrines; and progressive taxation, welfare, and other public assistance policies.

Keywords

sufficiency proviso necessity public commons adverse possession undue hardship

Type: Chapter
Information: Natural Property Rights , pp. 159 - 173

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108951395.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Avins, Alfred. 1968. “What Is a Place of ‘Public Accommodation’?,” Marquette Law Review 52 (1): 1–74.Google Scholar

American Law Institute. 1965. Restatement (Second) of Torts. St Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar

Ballantine, Henry W. 1918. “Title by Adverse Possession,” Harvard Law Review 32 (2): 135–59.CrossRef Google Scholar

Banner, Stuart. 2008. Who Owns the Sky?: The Struggle to Control Airspace from the Wright Brothers On. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Blackstone, William. 1765–69/1979. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Claeys, Eric R. 2013. “On the Use and Abuse of Overflight Column Doctrine,” Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal 2: 61–108.Google Scholar

Claeys, Eric R. 2017. “Labor, Exclusion, and Flourishing in Property Law,” North Carolina Law Review 95 (2): 413–92.Google Scholar

di Robilant, Anna. 2010. “Abuse of Rights: The Continental Drug and the Common Law,” Hastings Law Journal 61 (3): 687–748.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1986. “Past and Future: The Temporal Dimension of Property,” Washington University Law Quarterly 64 (3): 667–722.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1994. “On the Optimal Mix of Private and Common Property,” Social Philosophy and Policy 11 (2): 17–41.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1998. Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Fennell, Lee Anne. 2006. “Efficient Trespass: The Case for ‘Bad Faith’ Adverse Possession,” Northwestern University Law Review 100 (3): 1037–96.Google Scholar

Finnis, John M. 1990. “Allocating Risks and Suffering: Some Hidden Traps,” Cleveland State Law Review 38 (2): 193–207.Google Scholar

Finnis, John M. 2002. “Natural Law: The Classical Tradition,” in Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Coleman, Jules L., Shapiro, Scott J. & Himma, Kenneth Einar eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar

Gordley, James. 2005. “Damages Under the Necessity Doctrine,” Issues in Legal Scholarship 5 (2): 1–31.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grotius, Hugo. 1625/1962. De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres, Kelsey, Francis W. trans. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Co.Google Scholar

Harris, J.W. 1996. Property and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heller, Michael. 2008. The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Hilliard, Francis. 1846. The American Law of Real Property, 2d ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard.Google Scholar

Justinian. 533. The Institutes of Justinian, trans. Moyle, J.B.. 5th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.Google Scholar

Katz, Larissa M. 2010. “The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law,” McGill Law Journal 55 (1): 47–80.Google Scholar

Katz, Larissa M. 2013. “Spite and Extortion: A Jurisdictional Principle of Abuse of Right,” Yale Law Journal 122 (6): 1444–82.Google Scholar

Kent, James. 1826–30/1971. Commentaries on American Law. New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar

Klimchuk, Dennis. 2013. “Property and Necessity,” in Philosophical Foundations of Property Law, Penner, James E. and Smith, Henry E. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Locke, John. 1697/1977. “An Essay on the Poor Law,” in Locke: Political Essays, Goldie, Mark ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–98.Google Scholar

Locke, John. 1698/1988. Two Treatises of Government, Laslett, Peter ed., Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McDonald, Forrest, & McWhiney, Grady. 1980. “The South from Self-Sufficiency to Peonage: An Interpretation,” American Historical Review 85 (5): 1095–1118.CrossRef Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. 2012. “The Property Strategy,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160 (7): 2061–95.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. 2014. “Property and the Right to Exclude II,” Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal 3: 1–25.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. and Smith, Henry E.. 2010. The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Property. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Newman, Christopher M. 2011. “Transformation in Property and Copyright,” Villanova Law Review 56 (2): 251–325.Google Scholar

Penner, James E. 1997. The Idea of Property in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pufendorf, Samuel. 1688/1934. De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo, Oldfather, C.H. and Oldfather, William Abbott trans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Purdy, Jedediah. 2006. “The American Transformation of Waste Doctrine: A Pluralist Interpretation.” Cornell Law Review 91 (3): 653–98.Google Scholar

Restatement. See entries under “American Law Institute.”Google Scholar

Rose, Carol M. 1985. “Possession as the Origin of Property,” University of Chicago Law Review 52 (1): 73–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rose, Carol M. 1986. “The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property,” University of Chicago Law Journal 53 (3): 711–81.Google Scholar

Sawers, Brian. 2011. “The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land,” Temple Law Review 83 (3): 665–96.Google Scholar

Shoked, Nadav. 2016. “Two Hundred Years of Spite,” Northwestern University Law Review 110 (2): 357–421.Google Scholar

Simmons, A. John. 1992. The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Singer, Joseph William. 2000. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Henry E. 2012. “Property as the Law of Things,” Harvard Law Review 125 (6): 1691–726.Google Scholar

Sprankling, John G. 1996. “The Anti-Wilderness Bias in American Property Law,” University of Chicago Law Review 53 (2): 519–90.Google Scholar

Sreenivasan, Gopal. 1995. The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stake, Jeffrey E. 2001. “The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession,” Georgetown Law Journal 89 (8): 2419–74.Google Scholar

Stern, James Y. 2017. “The Essential Structure of Property Law,” Michigan Law Review 115 (7): 1167–212.Google Scholar

Van Hecke, M.T. 1954. “Injunctions to Remove or Remodel Structures Erected in Violation of Building Restrictions,” Texas Law Review 32 (5): 521–38.Google Scholar

Waldron, Jeremy. 1988. The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wyman, Bruce. 1904. “The Law of the Public Callings as a Solution of the Trust Problem,” Harvard Law Review 17 (3): 156–73.Google Scholar