Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
JMB Properties Urban Co. v. Paolucci
Citation:604 N.E.2d 967 (1992).
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 1984, Barretts Audio & Visual Store (Barretts) opened a store next door to Alfred Paolucci’s (the defendant) jewelry store in a mall. The defendant began complaining a month later to the then-landlord about the noise coming from Barretts. In 1985, Carlyle Real Estate (the plaintiff) bought the mall, hired JMB Properties (the other plaintiff) to manage the mall, and took over all outstanding leases, including the defendant’s and Barretts’. The defendant continued to make about 500 noise complaints about Barretts until Barretts moved out in February 1990. The defendants’ employees testified that the noise from Barretts shook the walls of the jewelry store, caused jewelry to topple over in display cases, and customers occasionally were unwilling to do business in the jewelry store due to the noise. In 1985, at the plaintiffs’ direction, Barretts insulated the stores’ common wall to sound proof it, but this did not fix the problem. The defendant failed to pay rent in July 1990, vacated the premies in August 1990, and moved his jewelry store to a new location less than 5 miles from the mall. The defendant’s lease stated that the defendant had to keep his jewelry store in the mall open for the duration of the lease term (until August 1992) and that he could not operate a similar business within a 5-mile radius during that time.
- 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.