Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
Metropolitan Park District v. Unknown Heirs of Rigney
Citation:399 P.2d 516 (Wash. 1965)
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.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- 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 1884, John L. Rigney conveyed a parcel of real estate to Tacoma Light and Water Company, to be used to conduct water to the City of Tacoma. The conveyance was subject to the condition that if the Company or its successors ceased using the land for the purpose of conducting water, the grantor or his heirs would have a right to reenter and repossess the estate. In 1905, the condition was broken by the City of Tacoma, successor of Tacoma Light and Water Company, who discontinued the use of conducting water to the City of Tacoma and began using the land as a park. Plaintiff Metropolitan Park District succeeded the City of Tacoma in owning the property in 1951. In 1965, Plaintiff brought an action to quiet title against Defendant known and unknown heirs to John L. Rigney. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging breach of condition subsequent.
- 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.