SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
O’Dell v. Stegall
Citation:
703 S.E.2d 561 (W. Va. 2010)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:
Plaintiff Michael J. O’Dell and Defendants Robert and Virginia Stegall’s home own adjacent properties. The dispute concerns a gravel lane that borders on the northern edges of both the Defendants’ property and the Plaintiff’s property. The Defendants do not own the gravel lane, but it is their only access to a public highway. The Plaintiff already has another access to the highway by his own driveway. The central question is whether the Plaintiff has a legal right to use the gravel lane to enter and exit from the north side of his home. Plaintiff insists that he has a prescriptive easement to use the lane as an additional access to his property. The Defendants retort that the Plaintiff does not have a prescriptive easement, and assert that the Plaintiff’s use will cause wear and tear to the gravel lane, which Defendants are contractually obliged to repair. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking to “quiet title by way of a prescriptive easement” allowing the Plaintiff to use the gravel lane.
- 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.
9m 48s