Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Baker v. Bailey
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:
Beginning June 1976, Arthur and Emma Bailey (Defendants) lived in a mobile home on their daughter’s property and drew water from the same pipeline that serviced their daughter’s home. In 1982, Defendants’ daughter sold her residence to Grant and Norma Baker (Plaintiffs), but reserved one acre of land surrounding the mobile home for Defendants. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Water Well Use Agreement (Agreement) to ensure Defendants had access to water. The Agreement was made solely for Defendants’ benefit and was to terminate once Defendants ceased to occupy the land. This was done because Plaintiffs wanted some control over future occupants of Defendants’ land. The Agreement did not reflect this reasoning. However, Defendants understood that Plaintiffs would supply water to successive owners if Plaintiffs deemed them acceptable. The Agreement also gave Plaintiffs the right of first refusal. In 1984 Defendants sought to sell their property. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they would not be transferring water rights to any subsequent owners. Defendants were therefore forced to sell their property for $8,000.00, although the land with water would have been worth about $47,500.00. Plaintiffs then exercised their right of first refusal and purchased the property from Defendants for $8,000.00. Plaintiffs subsequently sued Defendants for unpaid expenses. Defendants countersued for breach of the Agreement. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Minnesota County found Plaintiffs breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs 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.