Required. Include at least, the following: (1) case citation; (2) a statement of the legal issue(s)
in the case; (3) decision(s) and/or case holdings, and (4) rationale regarding the decision
Detroit Tigers, Inc. v. Ignite Sports Media, LLC, 203 F.Supp.2d 789 (E.D.Mich. 2002);
Case Brief Pointers
Vail v. Masker, 820 P.2d 1032 (Ga. App. 2002).
Be succinct and mention who sued whom.
Should always be in the form of a question (we should be able to
answer yes or
Do something generic (leave out names). Ex. “Does a business owner
have a duty to
protect its customers from acts of third parties?”
If more than 1 issue, separate your issues. Ex. Issue 1, Issue 2. Also,
break up your
rationales the same way for each issue. Ex. Rationale 1, Rationale 2.
Yes or No only. If more than 1: Yes/No/Yes.
Should explain the reason why the Court answered the issue in the affirmative
or in the negative.
Semester & Year
Citation of Case: Powell v. $4,600.00 U.S. Currency, 904 P.2d 153 (1995).
Facts: Late on Valentine’s Day 1994 a couple was driving along a Logan County Road. Martin
and Robyn Hoel discovered $4,600 in cash lying along the side of the road. Martin then
dropped Robyn off by a neighboring house so that she could contract the police. Martin
returned to the site in order to secure the area and waited for the police. When the deputy
sheriff arrived at the scene, Mr. Hoel helped him search for the money. The couple informed
him that they wanted the money if no one claimed it.
Six months later, the Logan County Sheriff sought permission to deposit the $4,600 into
the Sheriff’s Training fund as provided by Oklahoma law for unclaimed property. The Hoel’s
appeared at the hearing to dispute the action. The couple used common law argument that the
finder of lost property acquires rights in that property which are superior to all claims except
that of the rightful owner.
Issue 1: Does the finder of lost money qualify as an “owner” of the property, and so obtain
legal rights in the property that would outweigh those of the sheriff under the Oklahoma
unclaimed property law?
Issue 2: Do the Hoels qualify as finders of lost property?
Reason: (Judge Jones, Okla Ct of Civil Appeals) It was not the intent of the legislature to replace
the common law rules regarding the ownership rights of finders of lost property. The property
in question had an owner, that being the finder. The finder has better rights against everyone
in the whole world except the true owner. The Hoels were the finders of the money and do
qualify as finders.
Purchase answer to see full