Property Keyed to Chase
Corliss v. Wenner
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 the fall of 1996, JannWenner (defendant) hired Larry Anderson (defendant) and his employee, Gregory Corliss (plaintiff), to construct a driveway on Wenner’s ranch. While excavating soil for the driveway, Anderson and Corliss unearthed a glass jar containing rolls of gold coins. Anderson and Corliss agreed to split the gold coins between themselves, with Anderson maintaining physical possession of all the coins. Anderson and Corliss later argued over ownership the coins, and Anderson fired Corliss. Anderson then gave possession of the coins to Wenner in exchange for indemnification against any claims that Corliss might have against Anderson regarding the coins. Corliss sued Anderson and Wenner for possession of the coins. The trial court rejected the finders-keepers rule of treasure trove and ruled that the coins were considered mislaid property, thus granting possession to the landowner, Wenner. The trial court further held that the coins were a part of Wenner’s property, and that Anderson and Corliss were employees of Wenner. Corliss 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.