Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Merrill
Tappenden v. Artus
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:
Anthony A. Tappenden (“Plaintiff”), a car dealer, contracted with William Artus to purchase of a van. The contract was an installation contract. Plaintiff authorized Artus to take possession of the van before to paid the full purchase price. Later, the van broke down, and Artus scheduled for the van’s repair with Rayleigh Garage Ltd. (“Defendant”). Defendant’s mechanics were not aware that Plaintiff was not the van’s owner. Artus did not Defendant for the van’s repairs. A short while after the van’s break down, Plaintiff withdrew his permission for Artus to be in possession of the van. Plaintiff located the van, and began demanding Defendant to return it. Subsequently, Defendant claimed a mechanic’s lien and refused to return Plaintiff the van until its receipt of payment for the repairs. Plaintiff brought suit against Artus and Defendant seeking the van’s return and damages. Plaintiff alleged that he never authorized the van’s repair. Rather, Plaintiff should have made the repairs himself because he was a mechanic. Defendant counterclaimed for a declaration on the grounds it had a mechanic’s lien on the van. The judge dismissed Defendant’s counterclaim, entered judgment for Plaintiff, and ordered Defendant to return the van to Plaintiff.Defendant 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.
- 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.