Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to French
Jacque v. SteenBerg Homes, Inc.
Citation:563 N.W.2d 154 (Wis. 1997)
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
The plaintiffs, Lois and Harvey Jacque, were an elderly couple, retired from farming, who owned roughly 170 acres near Wilke’s Lake in the town of Schleswig, Wisconsin. The defendant, Steenberg Homes, Inc., was in the business of selling mobile homes. In the fall of 1993, a neighbor of the Jacques purchased a mobile home from Steenberg. Steenberg determined that the easiest route to deliver the mobile home was across the Jacques’ land because the only alternative was a private road that was covered in up to seven feet of snow and contained a sharp curve. Use of the private road would have required that several sets of “rollers” be used to maneuver the home around the curve. Steenberg asked the Jacques on several occasions whether it could move the home across the Jacques’ land, but they refused each time. The Jacques were sensitive about allowing others on their land because they had lost property valued at over $10,000 to other neighbors in an adverse possession action a decade prior to this case.
On the morning of the delivery, Mr. Jacque noticed the mobile home parked on the corner of the street adjacent to his property. He decided to find out where the movers planned to take the home, and the movers, who were Steenberg employees, showed Mr. Jacque the planned route that cut across his land. Mr. Jacque informed them it was his land they were planning to cut across, and that they did not have permission. The movers called the assistant manager who came to the Jacques home, and the Jacques called some of their neighbors and the town chairman, who all came immediately. Once everyone was present, the Jacques showed the assistant manager a map demonstrating the path they planned to take went across their land, and again indicated that Steenberg—did not have permission to cut across their land. The assistant manager then inquired how much money it would take to get permission, to which Mr. Jacque responded it was not a question of money, and that he did not want Steenberg to cross their land.
One of the Steenberg employees testified that upon coming out of the Jacques home the assistant manager stated “I don’t give a ____ what he said, just get the home in there any way you can.” The Steenberg employees then blocked the road with the company truck blocking anyone from seeing the route they took. They used a bobcat to cut a path across the Jacques’ snow-covered field and hauled the mobile home across their land. The neighbor informed the Jacques that Steenberg had cut across their land, and Mr. Jacque then called the Sheriffs department, after interviewing the parties an officer issued a $30 citation to the Steenberg manager. The Jacques then filed suit.
- 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.