Property Keyed to Rabin
Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Philwold Estates, Inc.
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:
Bradford once owned land on both sides of the Neversink River. In 1923, he sold portions of the land on both banks to Crane, retaining some of the land reserving an easement for hunting and fishing on the rest of the land. The west bank portion was sold via a deed that restricted its use solely for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a hydroelectric plant along with any facilities and structures necessary for that purpose. In 1927, Crane sold the land, subject to the covenant and easement, to Rockland Light and Power Company, now Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Plaintiff). The property that Bradford had retained was ultimately sold to PhilwoldEstates, Inc. Wechsler (Defendant) was a partner in the company that owned Philwold Estates. Defendant withdrew from that partnership, receiving Bradford’s former property along with the hunting and fishing easement. In 1940, New York City condemned all of Plaintiff’s riparian rights in the Neversink River. Plaintiff sued to extinguish the covenant because the condemnation deprived it of any meaningful use of its property. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate division reversed and held that the covenant should be extinguished because the covenant served no purpose and rendered Plaintiff’s land valueless. 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.