Property Keyed to French
Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart v. Boehm Bros.
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 Boehm Brothers (Defendant) received title to several lots in real estate to compensate for a debt owed to the Defendants by Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart (Plaintiff). As a precautionary measure, the Defendants stipulated in the contract for sale that if the title were unmarketable at closing then the Plaintiff would pay the Defendants the sum of $60,000. Plaintiff offered a deed, however the Defendants refused because they believed the title to be unmarketable. The Defendants belief of unmarketable title was supported by their opinion that the land was subjective to several restrictive covenants including that the land could only be used for residential buildings and that the land cannot be used for a gasoline station. They base their belief on deeds from the same grantor to other grantees who received a piece of land from the original large tract that was subdivided into smaller tracts of land. Plaintiffs brought suit to compel performance. The Trial Court determined the Plaintiff’s did not have marketable title because of a restrictive covenant and ruled in favor of the Defendants awarding them $60,000.
- 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.