Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Merrill
Medico-Dental Building Company of Los Angeles v. Horton and Converse
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:
Horton and Converse, Defendants, managed a drugstore in a building that Medico-Dental Building Company, Plaintiff, owned. Defendant’s business was reliant on on support by the building’s tenants, such as medical practitioners. The lease between Defendants contained a restrictive covenant that prohibited Plaintiff from leasing any portion of the building to another drug selling entity. The restrictive covenant and Defendants’ responsibility to pay rent were attached in a rider, which was included in the lease. The lease established the terms and conditions and stated that a breach of such conditions may cause termination of the lease. Plaintiff leased part of the building to Dr. Boonshaft. In Dr. Boonshaft’s office, there was a pharmacy that would sell drugs to his patients. When Defendant became aware of the competing pharmacy in the building, Defendant demanded that Plaintiff forbid Dr. Boonshaft’s pharmacy from selling drugs. Thereafter, Plaintiff attempted to negotiate with Dr. Boonshaft, but Plaintiff was unsuccessful. When Plaintiff told Defendant of Dr. Booshaft’s refusal, Defendant rescinded its lease and stopped paying rent. Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover the rent. The trial court found that Defendant’s condition, protecting it from competition, was a material condition of the lease. Further, the trial court held that Plaintiff materially breached the lease when it leased a portion of the building to a tenant that managed a competing pharmacy and did not immediately try to forbid the competing pharmacy’s management. In the appellate court, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s obligation to pay rent was independent of Plaintiff’s obligation to comply with the restrictive covenant because the main purpose of Plaintiff’s lease with Dr. Boonshaft was not the management of a pharmacy. Thus, in the event that there was a breach by Plaintiff, it was not substantial.
- 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.