Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Law Keyed to Singer
Acme Laundry Co., Inc. v. Secretary of Environmental Affairs
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:
Acme Laundry Company, Inc. (Acme I) acquired a parcel of land and operated a laundry business. Acme I adopted a liquidation plan and conveyed twelve parcels of land to Acme Laundry Company (Acme II), which succeeded to the rights of Acme I. Prospective purchasers of the laundry site had environmental engineers examine it. And contamination was found. The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering sent a letter to Acme II stating that the company was liable for contamination and would be responsible for all costs associated with it. The Department warned that the liability was a debt and created a lien on all of Acme II’s property. Acme II stated that they would take necessary action. Acme III was then incorporated, and Acme II conveyed the contaminated property to Acme III. A lien was placed on the property owned by Acme III. Acme II and III filed an action requesting a declaration that the lien is invalid. They claim that the Department could not place a lien on their pr operty because the Department had incurred no costs for the assessment, containment, and removal of hazardous materials, under the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act.
- 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.