Woodrick v. Wood
Ohio Court of Appeals
1994 WL 236287 (1994)
George Wood, who was deceased, left his real property (including Lots 105 and 106) to his wife, Catherine (defendant), as a life estate, with the property going to his children, Patricia Woodrick (plaintiff) and Sheridan Wood, upon Catherine’s death. A barn sat on the land straddling lots 105 and 106. Catherine and Sheridan wanted to have it torn down because of its old, deteriorating state, and because it was no longer suitable for its original purpose to house horses. Patricia, owner of a future interest in Lot 105, filed a suit seeking to enjoin them from razing the barn. The trial court refused to issue the injunction, but the court ordered that, if the barn were demolished, Catherine and Sheridan were to pay Patricia $3,200 to compensate her for the loss of the structure. Patricia appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmon, 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 711,000 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 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.