Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith
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:
Edgar O. Smith (Defendant) owns a 285-acre tract of land. Defendant’s predecessor in interest entered an agreement with Millbrook Hunt, Inc. (Plaintiff), an organization promoting the preservation and perpetuation of fox hunting. The agreement granted Plaintiff the right to use the land for fox hunting for a term of seventy-five years. It also allowed the owner of the land the absolute right to develop the land and redirect the hunting paths. But upon acquiring the property, Defendant, who objected to fox hunting, ejected members of Plaintiff from performing maintenance on the fox hunting trails. Plaintiffsued, seeking a declaration that it possessed an easement over Defendant’s property and an injunction preventing Defendant from interfering with Plaintiff’s use of the easement. Defendant argued that Plaintiff possessed a revocable license rather than an easement. The Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant.
- 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.