Property Keyed to Rabin
Nelson v. Johnson
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:
Robert and Marjorie Wake sold a portion of their land to Jess and Maud Hess but reserved for themselves a right of way and the right to use water from a spring on the property. The easements were “for the watering of livestock owned by the sellers . . . .”Prior to this division, part of the land was used as a dry farm and the other as a cattle ranch. The Wakes sold the dry farm and kept the ranch. The Hesses then sold the farm to the Johnsons (Defendants). Years later, the Wakes sold the cattle ranch to the Nelsons (Plaintiffs) along with their “right for stock water” from the spring in the dry farm. Whereas the Wakes used the easements as a matter of right, the Defendants purported to grant the Plaintiffs “permission” to use the road and the spring. The Defendants later purported to revoke that permission and soon denied the Plaintiffs access to the road and spring. The Plaintiffs sued to enforce their easement rights. The district court held that the Plaintiffs had an appurtenant easement in the road and spring, the farm being the servient estate and the ranch being the dominant estate. The Defendants 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.