Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
819 N.E.2d 579 (2004)


Facts

Pembroke Real Estate, Inc. (Pembroke) (defendant) commissioned David Phillips (plaintiff) to create sculpture and landscape elements for Eastport Park (the park), located in Boston, Massachusetts. Phillips organized his artwork along a diagonal axis through the park. After the park’s completion, Pembroke commissioned a redesign scheme that required the removal and relocation of Phillips’s sculptures. Phillips sued Pembroke in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking injunctive relief under federal law and the Massachusetts Art Preservation Act (MAPA). Phillips claimed that the park was the medium of his art under MAPA. MAPA prohibits the physical alteration or destruction of “fine art,” which MAPA defines as original works of visual or graphic art “of any media.” MAPA protection lasts for 50 years after an artist’s death. MAPA also protects building owners who commission art for buildings, by allowing the owners to remove the art under certain circumstances and by requiring artists to reserve their rights to prohibit the removal in writing prior to the installation of the art. The district court found that the location of the sculptures along the park’s axis was a critical element of Phillips’s work and placed limitations on Pembroke’s ability to remove or alter the sculptures. Pembroke and Phillips filed interlocutory appeals with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit The district court stayed the appeals pending resolution of the following issues by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: (1) whether the legislature intended to include site-specific art within the definition of fine art, and (2) whether MAPA’s prohibition of physical alteration or destruction includes the conceptual destruction that would result from the art’s removal from the site.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Cordy, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.