Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Thieme v. Worst
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:
In 1977, Richard and Rebecca Worst (Defendants) acquired a parcel of land, together with seven shares of Twin Falls Canal Company (Twin Falls) water. The southeast corner of the parcel had a culvert leading to an open ditch, which was previously used to irrigate water to the parcel. Defendants never used water on the property and never inspected the ditches. To prevent losing access to the water, Defendants arranged for a neighbor to farm the parcel in 1980 and 1981. Defendants were unaware that the neighbor used his own waste water rather than irrigating water from Twin Falls. Consequently, water had not been irrigated from Twin Falls onto the parcel since 1977. In 1982, Defendants listed the parcel and water shares for sale. Norris and Katherine Thieme (Plaintiffs) visited the parcel and, upon observing the culvert and ditch, assumed that water could be irrigated to the parcel. In March 1983, Plaintiffs purchased the parcel and water shares with the intent to build a home, pasture a few animals, and plant a garden. That spring, Plaintiffs discovered a cement barrier preventing delivery of water into the ditch. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants had been aware of the obstruction. In November 1983, Plaintiffs sued, seeking a rescission of the sale. The trial court found that both parties mistakenly believed the water shares could be delivered to the parcel. As a remedy, the court modified the agreement to require Defendants to arrange for water to be delivered to the parcel. Since Defendants had not provided water, the court found Defendants had breached the contract. Rather than grant Plaintiffs’ request for rescission, the court required specific performance. Plaintiffs appealed. Defendants cross-appealed, arguing that a mutual mistake did not exist.
- 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.