From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Shanks v. Floom
Supreme Court of Ohio
124 N.E.2d 416 (1955)
Austin Schiltz and William Floom owned homes located on adjacent lots. Around 1924 or 1925, Schiltz and Floom entered an oral agreement to build a cement driveway between their lots. Each owner paid for half the cost. They each used the common driveway until 1948, at which time Schiltz sold his home to Shanks (plaintiff). William Floom passed away that year, and his property was inherited by Floom (defendant). On July 26, 1951, Shanks brought an action to quiet title in the driveway and to enjoin Floom from using it. The Common Pleas Court denied the injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that both Shanks and Floom had acquired an easement over the driveway after over 21 years of adverse use.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bell, J.)
Dissent (Zimmerman, J.)
What to do next…
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 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.