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

Phoenix-Talent School District #4 v. Hamilton

Oregon Court of Appeals
210 P.3d 908 (2009)


Facts

The Phoenix-Talent School District #4 (District) (plaintiff) entered into an agreement with Charlie Hamilton and Michael Thirkill (defendants) to purchase approximately 17 acres of land to develop a new school. The District and the defendants signed an earnest-money agreement, which set out the purchase price and closing date. The agreement provided that, for the transaction, two tax lots were to be combined through a lot-line adjustment. This lot-line adjustment required approval by Jackson County, and the approval was listed as a condition precedent to the District’s obligation to purchase the property. The District and the defendants jointly hired a contractor to obtain the lot-line adjustment. The adjustment could not be accomplished prior to the closing date listed in the contract. Consequently, the District and the defendants agreed to extend the closing date by two months. Subsequently, Jackson County discovered that the original underlying lots had not been legally created, which caused a further delay. The defendants refused to extend the closing date again. The District offered to waive the requirement that the lot-line adjustment approval be obtained prior to closing, but the defendants refused to close and again refused to extend the closing date. The District sued the defendants for breach of contract and sought specific performance. The trial court ruled that the District could waive the timeliness requirement of the lot-line adjustment, and required the defendants to continue efforts to obtain approval of the adjustment. The defendants appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

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 (Sercombe, 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.

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 176,000 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.