Property Keyed to Rabin
Wetmore v. Ladies of Loretto, Wheaton
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:
Wetmore (Plaintiff) owned an eighty-acre tract bound on the east by Hawthorne Lane. In 1946Plaintiff sold ten landlocked acres to The Ladies of Loretto, Wheaton (Defendant), a non-profit corporation. Defendant built a mansion, chapel, garden, swimming pool, and other facilities. Plaintiff gave Defendant an express easement across his land to access Hawthorne Lane. The easement was over an existing driveway that ran in front of Defendant’s residence. In 1957, Defendant later purchased forty additional acres adjacent to the west of the ten-acre parcel and extending to the western border of the eighty acres. It then constructed a road extending west to Orchard Road, the western boundary. Relations between the parties deteriorated over the years due to heavy use of the easement. In 1962, Defendant began construction on a House of Studies, a single structure which was partly on the ten acres and partly on the forty acres. Plaintiff sued to enjoin use of the easement because Defendant had extended the easement to the forty acres and because the activities that took place on the forty acres could not be segregated from those on the ten acres, including those that took place on all of the other structures on the ten acres. Defendant answered that the sale of the forty acres created an implied easement benefitting that tract over the original easement. The trial court found that there was no implied easement, that the activities on the ten and forty acres could not be segregated, and that the express easement was therefore abandoned and extinguished. The court enjoined the use of the express easement until Defendant could ensure that the easement would only be used for activities taking place on the ten acres.
- 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.