Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Chase
Caspersen v. Town of Lyme
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 Caspersens (plaintiffs) own about 800 acres of land in the mountain and forest district (District) of the Town of Lyme (defendant). The Caspersens use their property for forestry purposes and have never attempted to develop it. In 1989, the town adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance (Ordinance) that permits forestry and single-family dwellings within the District for any lot that is 50 acres or larger. The town’s stated objectives for the District include encouraging the continuation of large tracts of land and encouraging forestry and timber harvesting. The Caspersens challenged the Ordinance. The Caspersens argued that the Ordinance would exclude low or moderate-income housing in the District, making the area less diverse. However, the Caspersens admitted that they had no intention of actually constructing any low or moderate-income housing on their property. The town held a rehearing but did not change the Ordinance. The Caspersens appealed to the trial court. The trial court upheld the Ordinance. The Caspersens appealed and argued that the Ordinance’s restriction on lot sizes: (1) was exclusionary, (2) violated their substantive due process and equal protection rights, (3) violated the state’s controlled growth statutes, and (4) was improperly adopted.
- 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.