Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Otero v. Pacheco
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:
Alexandro and Velma Pacheco (Defendants) owned a home that was built on one lot and partially on a second lot. Defendants’ septic tank was placed underneath the second lot. After the city discontinued the use of septic tanks, Defendants connected a sewer line from their home, which ran underneath the second lot to the adjoining street. Eventually, Defendants constructed a home on the second lot and connected it to the same sewer line. Defendants later sold the second home. Severo and Irene Otero (Plaintiffs) bought the second home without knowledge of the existence of the sewer line. On several occasions, the sewer line backed up causing damage to Plaintiffs home. After learning of the sewer line, Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking damages. Defendants counter-claimed alleging they had an existing easement across Plaintiffs’ property. At trial, Severo Otero testified that he did not know about the existence of the sewer line until nine years after they had purchased the home. The trial court found for Defendants. In doing so, the court concluded that Defendants held an easement by implied reservation. Plaintiffs appealed.
- 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.