Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Building Monitoring Systems, Inc. v. Paxton
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 December 1991, Michael Paxton and Amy Lowder (Defendants) rented an apartment from Building Monitoring Systems, Inc. (Plaintiff), who was in the business of renting out units in its multi-unit apartment building. Soon after taking possession, Defendants notified Plaintiff that the apartment required repairs. Although Plaintiff made some minor repairs, the apartment remained in violation of Health Department regulations. On August 9, 1993, Defendants reported the violations to the Health Department. In turn, the Health Department sent Plaintiff a letter ordering Plaintiff to make repairs by September 7. Instead, Plaintiff served Defendants with an eviction notice. However, Plaintiff reinstated the tenancy when it subsequently accepted Defendants’ rent for October. On October 12, the plaintiffs sent Plaintiff a list of needed repairs and complained again to the Health Department. The day after Plaintiff received notice from the Health Department regarding Defendants’ second complaint, Plaintiff served Defendants with another eviction notice. When Defendants refused to leave, Plaintiff brought this unlawful detainer action. Defendants submitted the defense of retaliatory eviction. The trial court agreed that the eviction was retaliatory but refused to recognize the defense because it had not previously been recognized in this jurisdiction.
- 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.