Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
Berg v. Wiley
Citation:264 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 1978)
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:
On November 11, 1970, Defendant Rodney A. Wiley, executed a written lease to lease land and a building for use as a restaurant. The lease specified that the tenant agreed to “make no changes in the building structure” without prior written authorization from Defendant landlord and to “operate the restaurant in a lawful and prudent manner.” Defendant reserved the right to repossess the premises if the conditions were not met. Plaintiff Kathleen Berg took assignment of the lease from the prior lessee and opened a restaurant on the premises. Plaintiff remodeled the building without procuring written permission and operated the restaurant in manners that violated certain health codes. On June 29, 1973, Defendant’s attorney sent a letter to Plaintiff, giving her 2 weeks to remodel the premises, or Defendant would retake possession of the premises. Plaintiff continued to operate the restaurant without remodeling. On July 13, 1973, the last day of the 2-week period, Defendant came to the premises and attempted to change the lock, but was stopped by Plaintiff. On July 16, 1973, accompanied by a police officer and a locksmith, Defendant entered the premises, in Plaintiff’s absence and without her knowledge, and changed the lock. The lease term was not due to expire until December 1, 1975. The premises were relet to another tenant on August 1, 1973. Plaintiff brought the damage action against Defendant, claiming wrongful eviction and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant raised the affirmative defense of abandonment and counterclaimed for damage to the premises.
- 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.