Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Rabin
Brown v. Voss
Citation:Supreme Court of Washington, 1986; 715 P.2d 514
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:
In 1952, the owners of a tract of property (Parcel A), granted to the owners of the neighboring tract (Parcel B) a private road easement across Parcel A for ingress and egress from Parcel B. In 1973, Defendants acquired Parcel A, and in 1977 Plaintiffs bought Parcel B and C.
Upon purchasing these parcels, Plaintiffs began constructing a single-family dwelling on the boundary line shared by Parcel B and C. Plaintiffs used the Parcel A easement to access Parcel B and C for construction. After the Plaintiffs completed over a year of construction and spent over $11,000 in expenses, the Defendants barred the Plaintiffs from using the easement.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants asking the court to allow them to use the easement. Defendants filed a counterclaim requesting damages and an injunction for Plaintiffs to stop using the easement to access Parcel C. The trial court ruled for Plaintiffs as long as they used the property they were constructing, solely for a single-family residence. Defendants appealed and the Court of Appeals ruled for Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.
- 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.