Essay on Judicial Protection

Introduction

The private owners, in this case, should not have the same protection since most of them are the ones who come up with actions that are against the interests of the minorities or those in contract with them. Furthermore, it is important to consider the scope of judicial protection particularly regarding the two parties that all of them should protect and if any has done wrong the correct action taken. The various cases like that of Howard v. Kunto and Gruen v. Gruen show the issue associated with the rights of defendants where more scrutiny needs to be done to establish their rights particularly in their dealings (Gruen v. Gruen, 1986). I further disagree with the statement on grounds that the minorities among other individuals need more protection because most of the time private owners are in the wrong as seen in the case of Cone v. Steinlauf where land with a defect was being sold to the plaintiff (Cole v. Steinlauf, 1957).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Furthermore, there is the issue of the various agreements particular I the use of land or the details of contracts as seen in case of Sanborn v. McClean where the plaintiffs are mostly on the receiving end when it comes to honoring the contract (Saborn v. McClean, 1977). In this case, they need more protection than those who privately own the properties or throw who manage the various corporations. In following on these cases, the people in question have been denied their rights to privacy or the defendants going against the contract details. In this case, the plaintiffs mostly have no power in dealing with the situations but have to go through the courts to get justice. The defendants like in the case of Blacket and Olanoff came up with agreements with their tenants in which they went against a case that is similar to that of Prah v. Maretti where the issue of blockage to sunlight and thus solar panel use is brought into question (Prah v Maretti, 1982; Blackett v. Olanoff 1977). The defendant, in this case, aimed to set up a building, which would in turn block sunlight from reaching Prah who was using the solar panels in his residence. In this case, though Maretti wanted to construct a house that met all the legal requirements he would still affect the rights of Prah in using solar energy, which is a natural resource. Commonwealth Building Corporation v. Hirschfield is another case that deals with the issue of double rent where the defendant a company has to pay the plaintiff who rented the premises to them until they sought to vacate the building (Commonwealth building v. Hirschfield, 1940). The application of the law was in favor of the plaintiff even though the defendant had delayed only by one day but the law stated that that the lessee could be held over for another year by an old rule. The protection, in this case, was to the plaintiff and did not consider the delay as being one day. The law, in this case, favored the leaser at all points. The law, in this case, was important in securing the rights of plaintiff since the defendant would have hindered the move of another person renting the building.

Conclusion

Another issue is the seizing of property particularly by government bodies in the guise of creating more jobs. In this case, the plaintiffs who were individuals facing government interference of their property without their consent needed judicial protection more than the City of London in this case (Kelo v. City of London, 2005). Seizing such property meant going against the rights of the individuals particularly their freedom and right to privacy. As such, the judicial protection should be provided to minorities and individuals who are mostly targeted in various cases mainly through the contracts or properties that they own. I totally disagree that the judicial protection should be provided to individuals, institution or companies that may hinder the rights of the minorities in the process of having contracts or owning property.

References

Commonwealth building v. Hirschfield, 22 Ill.307 Ill. App. 533, 30 N.E.2d 790 (App. Ct. 1940)

Prah v. Market, 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182, 1982 Wisc. 29 A.L.R.4th 324.

Blackett v. Olanoff, 371 Mass. 714, 358 N.E.2d 817, 1977 Mass.1 A.L.R.4th 843.

Sanborn v. McClean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496, 1925 Mich. 60 A.L.R. 1212.

Cole v. Steinlauf, 22 Ill.144 Conn. 629, 136 A.2d 744 (1957)

Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 505 N.Y.S.2d 849, 496 N.E.2d 869 (1986)

Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439, 60 ERC 1769 (2005)