Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Lindsey v. Normet
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:
The tenants (Plaintiffs) rented a single-family residence from the landlord (Defendant) on a month-to-month basis. On November 10, 1969, the city deemed the residence uninhabitable. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant make needed repairs but Defendant refused. In response, Plaintiffs withheld rent for the month of December. Defendant threatened to evict them. In Oregon, the Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer Statute (FED) governs the manner in which a landlord could recover possession of rented property. The FED requires trial no later than six days after the filing of the complaint, unless the tenant pays security for accruing rent. It also limits the litigable issues in a FED suit, particularly by precluding the tenant from arguing Defendant’s breach of duty to maintain as a defense. Furthermore, the FED requires the tenant to pay a bond in twice the amount of rent in order to bring an appeal. Plaintiffs in this case sued in the federal district court, seeking a finding that the FED was unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the FED was not unconstitutional under either the Due Process or the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- 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.