Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Pennell v. City of San Jose
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 City of San Jose (Defendant) enacted a rent control ordinance, which permits a landlord to increase a tenant’s rent by eight percent. If a landlord wishes to raise the rent by more than eight percent, and the tenant objects, a hearing is required. During this hearing, a Mediation Hearing Officer is permitted to take into account several factors, including the hardship to a tenant. Richard Pennell (Plaintiff), a San Jose landlord, objected to the terms of the ordinance allowing consideration of hardship to a tenant, resulting from a rent increase. He sued alleging that the ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions against taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Plaintiff argued that the hearing officer’s ability to reduce the rent because of hardship to a tenant is a taking, and is impermissible because it does not serve the purpose of eliminating high rents. The Supreme Court of California ruled that the ordinance was constitutional. Plaintiff then petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
- 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.