Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A.
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 Hawaii, gasoline is sold from approximately 300 service stations. Many of the stations are leased from oil companies by independent lessee-dealers. Under such an arrangement, the oil company purchased the land, constructed a service station, and then leased the station to a lessee-dealer. In 1997, Hawaii’s legislature enacted a law that prohibited oil companies from converting existing lessee-dealer-owned gasoline stations to company-owned stations, from locating company-operated stations in close proximity to existing lessee-dealer-operated stations, and limited the amount of rent that an oil company could charge a lessee-dealer. Plaintiff (Plaintiff), the largest marketer and supplier of gasoline in Hawaii, sued in federal district court against the state’s governor, Lingle (Defendant), and others challenging the statute. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the statute’s rent cap provision constituted a taking of Plaintiff’s property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and held that the statute failed to “substantially advance” a legitimate state interest and resulted in an unconstitutional taking. Defendant appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
- 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.