Property Keyed to Chase
Bridges v. Heimburger
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:
Doyle Homes (defendant) built a home on the lot and sold the property by general warranty deed to the Heimburgers (plaintiffs). The Heimburgers contracted to sell the home. However, just before the scheduled closing, the parties discovered that legal title was incorrectly held by Moore Homes.The Heimburgers sued Doyle Homes, Bridges, and Deweese for damages. Before the trial court heard the matter Moore Homes cured the defect in title by filing a quitclaim deed and clarifying that Moore Homes had no interest in the property. After the title had been cured, the Heimburgers rented the house for a time, but they made no further efforts to sell and did not make any further mortgage payments. The property was sold at foreclosure. At trial on the Heimburgers’ damages claim, the court determined that the defendants owed the amount the Heimburgers would have netted from the 1974 sale if the title had there not been defective. Defendants Bridges and Deweese 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.