Property Keyed to French
Mark v. St. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife
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 Marks (Plaintiffs) purchased land on Sauvie Island in 1990. Their land is surrounded by the Sauvie Island Wildlife Area, which is managed by the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Defendant). The Wildlife Area includes several miles of beaches that are frequently (and lawfully) used for public nudity. Plaintiffs are routinely exposed to public nudity while at the residence located on their land, as well as public sexual activity, and claim that this is a nuisance. Defendant in 1993 adopted a plan to restrict public nudity in the Wildlife Area, but did not fully implement it. Plaintiffs then sued Defendant, seeking an injunction restraining it from allowing nudity in the Wildlife Area, as well as monetary damages for the effects of the nudity. They also claimed that Defendant’s failure to regulate nudity in the Wildlife Area was an inverse condemnation constituting a taking of their land. The trial court dismissed all claims, holding that Defendant could not be sued for failure to perform a discretionary function, and that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim of inverse condemnation. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
- 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.