Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Chaplin v. Sanders
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:
Peter and Patricia Sanders (Defendants) own land adjacent to land owned by Kent, Barbara, Kenneth, and Hazel Chaplin (Plaintiffs). Around 1958, the Hibbards converted their land into a trailer park. Because the boundary was unclear, the Hibbards chose a drainage ditch to serve as the property line and built a road nearby. In 1960, McMurray had his land surveyed and found that the true boundary was not at the ditch and that the road encroached on his property. In 1962, Hibbard sold his land to the Gilberts. The sales contract recognized the true boundary. All subsequent owners of the Hibbards’ land had no notice until Defendants acquired it in 1976. Defendants had actual notice of the true boundary. Defendants continued to operate the trailer park on the land, using the road regularly. A strip of land between the road and the ditch was regularly used by residents, who maintained and planted flowers on it. In 1978, Plaintiffs purchased McMurray’s undeveloped land without knowledge of its true boundary. Plaintiffs learned of the true boundary and sued to quiet title. The trial court found that Defendants had adversely possessed the road but not the parcel between the road and the ditch. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the road, finding that Defendants had not established hostility. 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.
- 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.