Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
Riordan v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.
Citation:393 F.Supp.2d 1100 (2005).
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:
Riordan and other property owners (the plaintiffs) were issued an insurance policy insuring their title to the property by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (the defendant). The property was an “in-holding” (land surrounded by federally owned land) in the middle of the Sandia Mountain Wilderness of the Cibola National Forest near Albuquerque, New Mexico. The property was 2.5 miles from the nearest paved road but was accessible by the Piedra Lisa Trail, a hiking and horse trail unsuitable for vehicular access and maintained by the United States Forest Service (USFS). When the plaintiffs purchased the property in 1995, the prior owner and USFS employees told them that several roads accessed the property, including some that were accessible by jeep. The insurance policy issued by the defendant stated that it covered “lack of a right of access to and from the land.” After purchase of the land, the plaintiffs discovered there was no vehicular access to the property and filed a suit against the federal government to declare a vehicular right of way to the property. The suit was dismissed after the plaintiffs sold the property for a significant profit. Plaintiffs then made three demands for payment under the insurance policy, and all were refused by the defendant.
- 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.