Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Fuller
Scarpitti v. Weborg
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Scarpitti (Plaintiff) bought a parcel of residential land that was subject to a deed restriction requiring that 1) the size of the garage built on the land be no larger than two and one-half cars, and 2) any building plans be approved in writing by Weborg (Defendant), the authorized architect. Plaintiff’s original building plans called for a three-car garage, which Defendant subsequently rejected. Recognizing the need to conform to the restrictions, Plaintiff went on to build a home in accordance with the deed. Defendant, however, later approved the plans of other lot owners that contained three-car garages. Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages resulting from Defendant’s arbitrary enforcement of the neighborhood restrictions. The trial court granted Defendant’s dismissal of the case and on appeal the superior court reversed. The superior court held that Plaintiff was a third party beneficiary of the implied contract between Defendant and the neighborhood’s developer. Defendant appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.