Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Wright v. Wright
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:
In 1940, H.L. Wright, Sr. (Harve) and his son H.L. Wright, Jr. (Aitchey) purchased a farm together. Each had an undivided one-half interest in the land. Harve passed away two years later. He was survived by his wife and six children, three of whom were minors. In 1943, the Probate Court awarded Leila and her three minor children Harve’s undivided one-half interest in the farm. Leila and her minor children thereafter moved into the farm with Aitchey and his wife, Lorene (Plaintiff). Leila left the farm in 1944, and by 1950, all her children had left as well. Beginning in 1941, the farm was taxed solely in Aitchey’s name. Plaintiff paid the tax bills for the farm every year since 1944. By 1944, Aitchey and Plaintiff had paid off the entire mortgage on the farm. Apart from one year, Plaintiff occupied the farm continuously. In 1962, Aitchey conveyed approximately nine acres of the farm to the county. He warranted that he had the right to sell and convey the land. He also granted easements for construction of a roadway, a dam, and a reservoir. He did not seek permission from his siblings before making these conveyances. Neither Leila nor Aitchey’s siblings ever made a claim to the farm. In the 1970s, his siblings confirmed that they were entitled to Harve’s interest in the farm. However, they feared Aitchey and therefore did not confront him. After Aitchey passed away, Plaintiff requested that Aitchey’s siblings execute quitclaim deeds conveying their interest to Aitchey’s estate. They refused and Plaintiff and her children brought this action to quiet title. The jury found that Plaintiff and Aitchey had acquired title to the entire farm through adverse possession.
- 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.