Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Long v. Long

Supreme Court of Ohio
343 N.E.2d 100 (Ohio 1976)


Facts

In 1919, Henry Long conveyed three tracts of land in fee tail to his three children, Jesse Long, Edward Long, and Emma Long Olinger. The deed granted the land to “Jesse S. Long, and the children of his body begotten, and their heirs and assigns forever.” Henry died in 1932, and his will contained no general residuary clause (a clause specifying the disposition of property not otherwise mentioned in the will). In 1945, Jesse quitclaimed his interest in the land to Rosella Long, who died testate, making Marie Ethel Brown and her husband John Brown her sole beneficiaries. They in turn quitclaimed their interest in the property to Howard W. Long (plaintiff) and his wife Esther Naomi Long. Howard was Henry Long’s grandson and Edward Long’s son. Jesse died intestate and without issue in 1974. Edward Long died intestate in 1946, survived by his wife Emma and sons Howard and Eugene. Emma died in 1964; her will divided her residuary estate equally between her two sons. Eugene died in 1966; his will named his wife Bessie Long (defendant) as his sole beneficiary and specifically mentioned the real estate that was conveyed to Jesse. Emma Long Olinger died intestate in 1954, survived only by her son, Paul H. Olinger (plaintiff). Paul and Edward brought suit against Bessie, seeking a declaration of their interests in the property. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court of Ohio, with the parties agreeing that the estate created by Henry Long was a fee tail. The parties disagreed as to how the property would be disposed of after Jesse died without issue.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Corrigan, 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, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.