Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
Keydata Corp. v. United States
Citation:504 F.2d 1115 (1974).
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:
The United States government (the defendant) entered into a lease agreement with Wyman Street Trust where the defendant agreed to move into a commercial space owned by Wyman but currently occupied by Keydata Corp. (the plaintiff). The plaintiff had installed expensive equipment in the space, which the defendant wanted to keep, so the defendant agreed in their lease to pay $39,000 to Wyman for that equipment. The plaintiff and Wyman then entered into a separate agreement in which Wyman agreed to pay $39,000 to the plaintiff. The agreements also stated that the plaintiff would move out of the space on January 1, 1969, when the defendant would take possession of the premises. The plaintiff was not moved out of the space on January 1, 1969, and the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff the next day, cancelling the lease and refusing to pay the $39,000. The plaintiff later vacated the space and sued the defendant for enforcement of the lease and payment of the $39,000.
- 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.