Abe v. Chiba
Japan Supreme Court
18 Minshū 954 (1964)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
Abe (plaintiff) owned land with standing timber on it. At some point, Chiba (defendant) illegally cut down trees on Abe’s land. Abe sued Chiba to recover damages. Three parcels of land were involved, parcels A, B, and C. From the evidence provided at trial, the trial court found that Abe owned parcels A and C. The evidence also showed how much timber was cut from parcels B and C, and the value of that timber. The lower court held in favor of Abe, and Chiba appealed. The appellate court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine the correct amount of the damages because there was no evidence indicating the amount or value of the timber that was cut from parcel A. Based on that lack of evidence, the appellate court dismissed Abe’s petition for damages. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court made a finding that there was no possibility of obtaining additional evidence regarding the value of the timber on parcel A. Abe appealed to the Japan Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ken’ichi, Sakunosuke, Yoshihiko, Kazuto, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.