Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Merrill
Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.
Citation:602 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. Mich. 1999)
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:
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., and its subsidiary Empire Iron Mining Partnership, operate The Empire Mine in the village of Palmer in Marquette County, Michigan. Fifty-two of fifty-five plaintiffs, lived near the mine. The mine engaged in regular blasting operations weekly, and extraction and processing of the iron ore generated lots of airborne dust. The plaintiffs complained that the operation of The Empire Mine sent tremors through their property, and that the defendant’s dust accumulated inside and outside their houses. The plaintiffs had to replace carpet and drapes, replace windows, and suffer plumbing leaks, and other harms. Also, plaintiffs complained that the noise and vibrations caused them to suffer from shock, nervousness, and sleeplessness. Lastly, they complained that these conditions diminished the value of their homes. The plaintiffs sued for trespass and nuisance. At trial, the trial judge instructed the jury that a right to recover damages for trespass is proper if any damages were caused by the trespass and that a landowner who causes emissions, dust, vibration, or noise onto the property of another could be liable for trespass. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the trespass claim but was unable to agree on a verdict for the nuisance claim.
- 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.