Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Berg v. Ting
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:
Norman and Marjorie Berg (Plaintiffs) own a tract of land adjacent to a tract of land previously owned by John and Beverly Cahill. On the other side of the Cahills’ property lay a tract of land owned by Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Young. In 1983, the Cahills and the Youngs agreed to subdivide their properties and submitted a short plat application to the city. Plaintiffs officially opposed the application. In 1984, Plaintiffs, the Cahills, and the Youngs entered an agreement under which Plaintiffs would withdraw their opposition in exchange for an easement over the Cahills’ property. A grant of easement was recorded on June 18, 1984. The grant gave the parties the freedom to select the exact location of the easement within tracts A and B. Tracts A and B were to be specifically defined once the short plat application was approved and recorded. The short plat application was not approved until May 2, 1988. By then, it had been considerably reconfigured and re-designated. As a result, the portion of the Cahills’ property described in the grant did not actually depict the area where the easement would actually exist. In October 1988, Robert Y. and Kathy Ting (Defendants) purchased the Cahills’ property. Defendants’ deed did not mention Plaintiffs’ easement and Defendants refused to recognize it. Plaintiffs sued in March 1990 to quiet title in the easement. The trial court and Court of Appeals held that the grant of the easement was void for failure to satisfy the statute of frauds. However, the Court of Appeals held that the grant of the easement was nevertheless enforceable under the doctrine of part performance.
- 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.