Property Law Keyed to Cribbet
Suttle v. Bailey
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 1937 Dickason and wife owned a tract of land which was then added to Albuquerque and subdivided with restrictive covenants placed thereon. The restrictions were intended to restrict the use of land to residential housing only. The last sentence of the restriction stated that the covenants were to end in January 1970, except that it was mutually understood that the restrictions could be altered or amended at any time prior to January 1970 by the grantor, his successors and assigns, and any owner of any lot at the time of the proposed amendment to the restrictions. The amendment or alteration with one owner of one lot by the grantor would be permitted to occur without requiring the consent of the adjacent property owners. The Plaintiffs are two owners of lots in the addition and the Defendants are purchasing two of the adjoining lots from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, who now own the lots to be purchased. The contract for purchase provides that the property is being sold subject to th e restrictions. The Defendants have placed an office building nearer to the property line than allowed and have begun construction of an insulation business. The Plaintiffs sued to enjoin the use of the land by the Defendants as being disallowed by the restrictive covenants. The lower court granted the injunction. Defendants 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.