SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Merrill
U.S. v. Miller
Citation:
317 U.S. 369 (1943)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 took land from the defendants pursuant to its eminent domain power and provided the defendants with just compensation. By August 26, 1937, the Government was committed to using the area for the project. Between the date of commitment and the filing of the complaint, a settlement, Boomtown, grew and realtors came to develop the neighborhood. More than a year later, on December 14, 1938, the United States filed a complaint in eminent domain against the defendants and others whose lands were to be taken. Simultaneously, the United States filed a declaration of taking and made an estimate of the just compensation to be paid to the defendants. At trial, the court instructed the jury to estimate the fair market value of the property involved to obtain a figure for the just compensation. The defendants preferred the jury instruction that the fair market value estimation should be made as of December 14, 1938. Counsel for the United States argued that the defendants were not entitled to any increase of value that resulted from the U.S.’s commitment to the project; instead, the fair market value estimation should be calculated from the moment of commitment, which was August 26, 1937. The District Court for Northern California agreed and awarded the defendants just compensation based on an estimate of fair market value of the property on August 26, 1937.
- 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.
7m 10s