Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Brown v. Voss

Supreme Court of Washington
715 P.2d 514 (1986)


Facts

[Ed. Note: the reader should consult the casebook for a diagram depicting the land at issue.] In 1952, the then-owners of Parcel A granted the then-owners of Parcel B a private road easement which was to be used for ingress and egress to and from Parcel B through Parcel A. Voss (defendant) acquired Parcel A in 1973, and Brown (plaintiff) acquired Parcels B and C in 1977, at different times and from different owners. The previous owners of Parcel C had nothing to do with the easement relating to Parcel B. Brown desired to build a house on his land straddling Parcels B and C and began preparations for this endeavor in November 1977. In April 1979, after Brown had spent almost $11,000 preparing to build the house, Voss placed a fence, logs, and a concrete sump on the easement land in order to prevent Brown from further using it. Brown sued to have the obstructions removed. Voss countersued to prevent Brown from using the easement for access to anything other than Parcel B. The trial court found (1) that there was no significant increase in the traffic along the easement as a result of Brown’s acquisition of Parcel C, (2) that Parcel C would be landlocked if access to it through the easement on Parcel A were prohibited, which would hamper Brown’s enjoyment of his land, and (3) that any order prohibiting Brown from using the easement to get to Parcel C would be impractical and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Brown and ordered that he be permitted to use the easement to access Parcels B and C. The Court of Appeals reversed, and Brown appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Brachtenbach, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Dore, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 203,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.