SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Brinton v. Haight
Citation:
125 Idaho 324, 870 P.2d 677 (1994)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:
In 1983, the Haights purchased a parcel of real property from the Brintons. Part of the purchase price was payable in installments under terms of a promissory note in the amount of $64,500. The note was secured by a deed of trust under which Pioneer was trustee and the Brintons were beneficiaries. The Haights delivered a check for the payoff balance of the note to the Brintons’ escrow agent on November 1990 and requested immediate delivery of the deed. The Haights revoked the check when the escrow agent couldn’t comply with the request immediately. The Brintons charged a $28 reconveyance fee, which had been included in the payoff balance. The Haights asserted that they were not required to pay the fee and the Haights thereafter made no payments on the note. On June, 1991, the Brintons filed this action seeking a judgment for the unpaid principal balance of the promissory note plus interest accrued through date of judgment, and also requesting judicial foreclosure of the deed of trust.
- 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.
Topic Resources
Topic Videos 
9m 27s
11m 27s
