Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Hawai’i Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Citation:467 U.S. 229 (1984).
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 the 1960’s, 47% of the land in Hawai’i was owned by only 72 landowners. The rest of the land was owned by the federal and state governments. To address this land ownership oligopoly, the Hawai’i Legislature passed the Land Reform Act of 1967(the “Act”). The Act created a condemnation plan to seize land from these 72 landowners and redistribute it more evenly among the general population, namely their tenants. Under the plan, a tenant could file an application for condemnation with the Defendant, the Hawaii Housing Authority, and the state would then condemn the property. Next, the Defendant would sell the condemned land to the tenant who had applied for fee simple ownership. This process reduced the tax burden on the 72 landowners. As such, the landowners received compensation for the sale, but with a lot lower of a tax burden. The Plaintiffs, Midkiff and other landowners, filed suit in federal court on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional as it violated the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- 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.