Also known as: negative pregnant · negative averment
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An interest in land that entitles its holder to prevent the owner of the burdened land from engaging in specified uses or activities. The interest arises by conveyance and runs with the land when created to benefit a dominant estate.
An interest in land that entitles its holder to prevent the owner of the burdened land from engaging in specified uses or activities. The interest arises by conveyance and runs with the land when created to benefit a dominant estate.
A conception of liberty consisting in freedom from governmental interference rather than an affirmative entitlement to government action or benefits.
A conception of liberty consisting in freedom from governmental interference rather than an affirmative entitlement to government action or benefits.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Nestor Navarro conveyed a negative easement over his rural parcel to neighbor Nicole Navarro. When Nestor later began erecting a large illuminated billboard, Nicole obtained an injunction preventing the construction because the easement allowed her to stop any structure that would obstruct her view of the mountains.
Neptune Energy purchased land subject to a recorded negative easement that prohibited industrial uses. When the company began drilling test wells, the neighboring owner sued to enforce the restriction, treating the negative easement as a restrictive covenant under modern doctrine.
Nyah Ndlovu bought a lot burdened by a negative covenant requiring her to refrain from building any structure taller than one story. When she submitted plans for a two-story addition, the adjacent owner enforced the covenant because the burden was negative in nature.
Nolan Nunez leased space in a shopping center subject to a negative easement recorded against the parcel that barred exterior signage. When he installed a large illuminated sign, the landlord obtained an order requiring its removal because the negative easement functioned as a restrictive covenant limiting permissible uses.
3 common questions
A negative easement allows the holder to prevent the servient owner from performing acts the owner would otherwise be privileged to do. An affirmative easement instead permits the dominant owner to enter and perform acts on the servient land.
Supporting sources
The Restatement treats negative easements as restrictive covenants rather than easements. This classification reflects the modern view that a negative easement simply imposes a duty to refrain from certain land uses.
Supporting sources
The nature of the burden controls the classification. A negative covenant requires the covenantor to refrain from specified conduct, while an affirmative covenant requires the covenantor to perform an act.
Supporting sources
Nikhil Narayan and his partner challenged a state law banning same-sex marriage. The Court held that the Due Process Clause protects a negative liberty interest in personal autonomy that prevents the state from imposing such a prohibition on intimate choices.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseNoah Nakamura and his wife challenged a state statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples. The Court recognized a negative liberty interest in marital privacy that bars the state from enforcing such a prohibition inside the home.
Estelle Griswold served as Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Dr. C. Lee Buxton served as the League's Medical Director and was a professor at Yale Medical School. Together they opened and operated a center in New Haven that was open from November 1 to November 10, 1961. At the center they gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. Fees were usually charged, although some couples were serviced free. The statutes involved were sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.). Section 53-32 made it a crime to use any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. Section 54-196 punished accessories as principals. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut affirmed that judgment in State v. Griswold, 151 Conn. 544, 200 A. 2d 479. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The appellants asserted standing to raise the constitutional rights of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. A criminal conviction for serving married couples removes doubts about case or controversy. The rights of husband and wife would be diluted unless considered in a suit involving those who have this kind of confidential relation to them.
1 common questions
Negative liberty refers to freedom from governmental restraint or interference. It stands in contrast to positive liberty, which would require the government to provide affirmative benefits or entitlements.
Supporting sources
…protected. For these reasons we are all of opinion that the question certified by the circuit court should be answered in the negative: the defendant is not entitled, under the facts stated, to the same defence against the plaintiff as if the suit were between the original parties to the bill. We shall direct that answer…