From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
The City of Klamath Falls v. Bell
Oregon Court of Appeals
490 P.2d 515 (1971)
Facts
Fred Schallock and Floy Daggett were the two exclusive shareholders of a corporation that owned a tract of land in the city of Klamath Falls (plaintiff). Schallock and Daggett executed a deed in the name of the corporation that conveyed the land to the city on the condition that the land be used only for public library purposes. The deed provided that title would pass to Schallock and Daggett or their heirs and assigns in the event that the land ceased to be used for a library. The city built and operated a library on the site for a period of time. After the city closed the library, it brought suit against Constance Bell (defendant) and other heirs of Schallock and Daggett seeking a declaration of the rights of all parties under the deed. At some point after the initiation of the lawsuit, Bell and the other heirs conveyed their interests in the subject property to Marijane Flitcraft. The trial court concluded that the remainder interest in the heirs of Schallock and Daggett was void under the rule against perpetuities and declared the city of Klamath Falls to be the holder of fee simple title. Marijane Flitcraft represented the defendants on appeal as the sole remaining claimant of an interest in the property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwab, C.J.)
What to do next…
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.
