Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
Board of Education of Minneapolis v. Hughes
Citation:136 N.W. 1095 (Minn. 1912)
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 May 16, 1906, Carrie B. Hoerger, agreed to sell a lot to Defendant L. A. Hughes. Defendant sent Hoerger a check for the purchase price and a deed to be executed and returned by Hoerger. The name of the grantee in the deed was left blank. The deed was executed and acknowledged by Hoerger and her husband on May 17, 1906, and sent back to Defendant by mail. Defendant filled in the name of the grantee, but only shortly prior to when he recorded the deed on December 16, 1910. On April 27, 1909, Duryea & Wilson paid Mrs. Hoerger $25 for a quitclaim deed to the lot, which was executed and delivered to them, but which was not recorded until December 21, 1910. On November 19, 1909, Duryea & Wilson executed and delivered to plaintiff a warranty deed to the lot, which deed was recorded January 27, 1910. Thus, the Hoerger-to-Defendant deed to was recorded before the Hoerger-to-Duryea & Wilson deed, but the Duryea & Wilson-to-Plaintiff deed was recorded before the Hoerger-to-Duryea & Wilson deed. Both Plaintiff and Defendant alleged title in themselves.
- 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.