Radical Jurisprudence

A neighbor digs a ditch on his side of a property line, exposing root systems from two of the adjoining landowner’s trees. The neighbor then cuts off the exposed roots, leaving the trees unsupported and in danger of falling onto the house of their owner. Is the root cutter liable to the owner of the tree? The Washington Court of Appeals recently answered this question in Mustoe v. Ma. The Mustoe Court held that when a root-cutting neighbor removed encroaching tree roots, he owed no duty to the tree owner “to act in good faith and to act reasonably so as not to prevent damage to the trees.” And so the root cutter could not be held liable for that damage. This holding, though perhaps trivial-seeming, turns out to have troubling consequences. On a practical level, it gives the malicious a powerful weapon to wield against their neighbors. On the level of legal doctrine, the court’s analysis unsettles Washington’s law of nuisance. In what follows, I will summarize the facts of the case and the court of appeals’ holding, and then turn to how and why the court of appeals got the case wrong. I will close with some suggestions about how the court of appeals should have decided the case

Radical Jurisprudence

A neighbor digs a ditch on his side of a property line, exposing root systems from two of the adjoining landowner’s trees. The neighbor then cuts off the exposed roots, leaving the trees unsupported and in danger of falling onto the house of their owner. Is the root cutter liable to the owner of the tree? The Washington Court of Appeals recently answered this question in Mustoe v. Ma. The Mustoe Court held that when a root-cutting neighbor removed encroaching tree roots, he owed no duty to the tree owner “to act in good faith and to act reasonably so as not to prevent damage to the trees.” And so the root cutter could not be held liable for that damage. This holding, though perhaps trivial-seeming, turns out to have troubling consequences. On a practical level, it gives the malicious a powerful weapon to wield against their neighbors. On the level of legal doctrine, the court’s analysis unsettles Washington’s law of nuisance. In what follows, I will summarize the facts of the case and the court of appeals’ holding, and then turn to how and why the court of appeals got the case wrong. I will close with some suggestions about how the court of appeals should have decided the case

Radical Jurisprudence

A neighbor digs a ditch on his side of a property line, exposing root systems from two of the adjoining landowner’s trees. The neighbor then cuts off the exposed roots, leaving the trees unsupported and in danger of falling onto the house of their owner. Is the root cutter liable to the owner of the tree? The Washington Court of Appeals recently answered this question in Mustoe v. Ma. The Mustoe Court held that when a root-cutting neighbor removed encroaching tree roots, he owed no duty to the tree owner “to act in good faith and to act reasonably so as not to prevent damage to the trees.” And so the root cutter could not be held liable for that damage. This holding, though perhaps trivial-seeming, turns out to have troubling consequences. On a practical level, it gives the malicious a powerful weapon to wield against their neighbors. On the level of legal doctrine, the court’s analysis unsettles Washington’s law of nuisance. In what follows, I will summarize the facts of the case and the court of appeals’ holding, and then turn to how and why the court of appeals got the case wrong. I will close with some suggestions about how the court of appeals should have decided the case

On the Lawfulness of Awards to Class Representatives

When class actions are settled or the class prevails on the merits, successful class representatives are often net losers: their individual recovery does not cover the opportunity costs and other losses they have incurred in representing the class. For that reason among others, they frequently receive an award on top of their relief as class members. The federal courts of appeals had unanimously approved these awards until recently, when the Eleventh Circuit relied on two nineteenth-century cases to hold that they are always unlawful. That decision is now the subject of a cert petition. The Eleventh Circuit got it wrong. Class settlements provide independent authority for awards to class representatives, despite otherwise applicable constraints on courts’ remedial authority. In relying on nineteenth-century case law, moreover, the court drew an ill-conceived analogy between a class representative and a creditor in a railroad reorganization. Worse, it ignored a more convincing analogy suggested by the very case law on which it relied: an analogy between class representatives and trustees under which awards to class representatives are lawful

Constructive exceptional bundles on P3\mathbb{P}^3

We give a complete classification of the Chern characters of constructive exceptional vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^3$ analogous to the work of Dr\'ezet and Le Potier on $\mathbb{P}^2$, and using this classification prove that a constructive exceptional bundle $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^3$ with $\mu(E) \geq 0$ is globally generated.Comment: v3, 27 pages. Comments welcome

Radical Jurisprudence

A neighbor digs a ditch on his side of a property line, exposing root systems from two of the adjoining landowner’s trees. The neighbor then cuts off the exposed roots, leaving the trees unsupported and in danger of falling onto the house of their owner. Is the root cutter liable to the owner of the tree? The Washington Court of Appeals recently answered this question in Mustoe v. Ma. The Mustoe Court held that when a root-cutting neighbor removed encroaching tree roots, he owed no duty to the tree owner “to act in good faith and to act reasonably so as not to prevent damage to the trees.” And so the root cutter could not be held liable for that damage. This holding, though perhaps trivial-seeming, turns out to have troubling consequences. On a practical level, it gives the malicious a powerful weapon to wield against their neighbors. On the level of legal doctrine, the court’s analysis unsettles Washington’s law of nuisance. In what follows, I will summarize the facts of the case and the court of appeals’ holding, and then turn to how and why the court of appeals got the case wrong. I will close with some suggestions about how the court of appeals should have decided the case

The Home Range and Habitat Preferences of Swamp Rabbits Along a Shell Road in the Intermediate Marsh of Southwestern Louisiana

The objective of this study was to determine the home range and habitat preferences of swamp rabbits in the intermediate (between brackish and fresh) marsh of southwestern Louisiana. A total of 12 instrumented rabbits provided data for home range estimates. Four rabbits were fol lowed during the falI, winter and spring. Average home range for males was 10.60 acres and 5.14 acres for females on an area which had a population density of 7.74 rabbits per acre The most preferred habitat components were wiregrass with baccharis Iess than four feet taII IightIy interspersed. Baccharis over four feet tall with moderately in interspersed wireqrass was second, with roseau cane and baccharls over four foot talI lightly interspersed with wire­ grass third. Solid wiregrass stands were the least preferred habitat type Weights of 21 adult males averaged 1831 grams, 27 adult females averaged 1965 grams, 9 immature females averaged 1472 grams and im­mature males averaged 1601 grams. Swamp rabbits were generally crepuscular

Higher rank Brill-Noether theory on P^2

Let $M_{\mathbb{P}^2}(v)$ be a moduli space of semistable sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^2$, and let $B^k(v) \subseteq M_{\mathbb{P}^2}(v)$ be the \textit{Brill-Noether locus} of sheaves $E$ with $h^0(\mathbb{P}^2, E) \geq k$. In this paper we develop the foundational properties of Brill-Noether loci on $\mathbb{P}^2$. Set $r = r(E)$ to be the rank and $c_1, c_2$ the Chern classes. The Brill-Noether loci have natural determinantal scheme structures and expected dimensions $dim B^k(v) = dim M_{\mathbb{P}^2}(v) - k(k - \chi(E))$. When $c_1 > 0$, we show that the Brill-Noether locus $B^r(v)$ is nonempty. When $c_1 = 1$, we show all of the Brill-Noether loci are irreducible and of the expected dimension. We show that when $\mu = c_1/r > 1/2$ is not an integer and $c_2 \gg 0$, the Brill-Noether loci are reducible and describe distinct irreducible components of both expected and unexpected dimension.Comment: 29 pages, published version. Comments welcom

Using a community of practice to evaluate falls prevention activity in a residential aged care organisation: a clinical audit

Objective This study evaluates whether a community of practice (CoP) could conduct a falls prevention clinical audit and identify gaps in falls prevention practice requiring action. Methods Cross-sectional falls prevention clinical audits were conducted in 13 residential aged care (RAC) sites of a not-for-profit organisation providing care to a total of 779 residents. The audits were led by an operationalised CoP assisted by site clinical staff. A CoP is a group of people with a shared interest who get together to innovate for change. The CoP was made up of self-nominated staff representing all RAC sites and comprised of staff from various disciplines with a shared interest in falls prevention. Results All 13 (100%) sites completed the audit. CoP conduct of the audit met identified criteria for an effective clinical audit. The priorities for improvement were identified as increasing the proportion of residents receiving vitamin D supplementation (mean 41.5%, s.d. 23.7) and development of mandatory falls prevention education for staff and a falls prevention policy, as neither was in place at any site. CoP actions undertaken included a letter to visiting GPs requesting support for vitamin D prescription, surveys of care staff and residents to inform falls education development, defining falls and writing a falls prevention policy. Conclusion A CoP was able to effectively conduct an evidence-based falls prevention activity audit and identify gaps in practice. CoP members were well positioned, as site staff, to overcome barriers and facilitate action in falls prevention practice