Caecina v. Aebutius
Praetor Urbanus (Ancient Rome) (69 B.C.E.)
Bruce W. Frier, Autonomy of Law and the Origins of the Legal Profession, 11 Cardozo Law Rev. 259, 262-266 (1989)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Aulus Caecina (plaintiff) claimed entitlement to his late wife’s estate, which included a farm property. Sextus Aebutius (defendant) claimed the farm belonged to Aebutius and, together with armed neighbors, prevented Caecina from entering the property. Caecina returned to Rome and sought an interdict (injunction) against Aebutius from the Urban Praetor based on Aebutius’s use of armed force to prevent Caecina from entering the farm. The Urban Praector appointed a recoverers panel to assess the competing claims. The primary issue for the panel was the legal question of how to interpret the rights to an interdict de vi armata (injunction concerning armed force). In an unusual step, Caecina’s advocate, the famed orator Cicero, presented responsa (statements of law) provided by jurists.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.