Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Epstein
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc.
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Defendant was in the process of building a fourteen-story addition to their hotel, which was being constructed twenty feet from its northern property line. During the winter months, from two in the afternoon until the end of the day, the shadow of Defendant’s addition will extend over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of Eden Roc, which is located on the southern portion of Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff filed suit when the addition was eight stories high. Plaintiff contended that the shadow, which would be cast by the addition would render Plaintiff’s beach wholly unfit for the use and enjoyment of its guests. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s intention to build the addition on the north side of their property was motivated in part by malice and ill will. Construction on the south side of Defendant’s property would not have caused the same problems. Plaintiff alleged that the construction would interfere with the easements of light and air enjoyed by Pla intiff, and that Plaintiff had an easement by implication. Defendant denied the material allegations, pleading laches and estoppel by judgment. Plaintiff received a temporary injunction. It is clear that the addition to Defendant’s property will damage Plaintiff. Defendant 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.