Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Frier
Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
Citation:417 Mich. 17, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
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:
Appellants purchased a tract of land on which an apartment building was located. Prior to the transfer the owner had installed a septic tank on the property without a permit and in violation of the health code. Later, Appellants sold the property to Appellees. The contract for sale stated that “Purchaser has examined this property and agrees to accept same in its present condition. There are no other or additional written or oral understandings.” Appellees later discovered raw sewage seeping from the land and Plaintiff condemned the property for violation of the health code. Appellees alleged failure of consideration and willful concealment and failure to disclose the sanitation condition and asked that the land contract be rescinded. The trial court found there was no fraud or misrepresentation, as none of the parties knew of the transgression of the earlier owner, and the property was purchased “as is” after inspection. The trial court ruled that Appellees lacked a cause of action and foreclosure was ordered along with a judgment in the amount of $25, 943. The court of appeals affirmed in part but reversed on the finding of no cause of action.
- 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.