Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to French
Coons v. Carstensen
Citation:15 Mass. App. Ct. 431, 446 N.E.2d 114 (1983)
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 1961 the legislature in Massachusetts enacted a statute authorizing the Commisioner of Natural Resources to acquire approximately 1,000 acres of marsh and land along the Sudbury River. The defendants, the Cartensens, land bordered the Sudbury. As a result, the Cartensens found their land subject to being taken by eminent domain, unless they agreed to subject it to conservation restrictions. Rather than lose their land, they agreed with the Lincoln Land Conversation Trust to subject the land to conservation restrictions. Sixteen years later, the Cartensen’s sold their home to the plaintiffs, the Coons, for $400,000. The Cartensens promised to convey a good and clear record and marketable title. When the Coons found out about the conservation restrictions, they refused to continue the purchase and demanded the return of their $40,000 deposit. The Cartensens refused, and, so, the Coons sued.
- 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.