Case Brief Mod 1
CRM 321
Substantive Criminal Law
Case Brief Mod 1
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiffs,
v.
Monte Dale THOMPSON, Defendant.
Hawaii Supreme Court (1986)
Parties: [Parties to the case]
U.S. (Plaintiff) v. Thompson (Defendant)
Facts: [Briefly state the relevant facts of the case that the court relied upon to reach their decision – normally 1-2 paragraphs]
The Bretons are sought to cancel the Agreement of Sale of a leasehold interest and for damages. The Bretons alleged that CPS had breached the Agreement by defaulting on the payment due thereon and by vacating the premises.
Prior Proceedings: [Briefly describe the circumstances that have occurred in the case to this point]
This case was originally brought before the Land Court of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. The land court, after the trial, found in favor of the Bretons against CPS. Thereafter, CPS filed a motion to set aside the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, and to set the matter for a jury trial. The land court denied the motion.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: [What was the legal issue presented to the court?]
Does the land court have jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties: [What were the arguments or objections presented to the court?]
In answer to the Breton’s petition to cancel Agreement of Sale, one of CPS’s defenses was that the land court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. Therefore any judgment rendered is invalid.
Holding/Rule of Law: [What was the legal rule(s) or principle(s) the court applied to the case?]
“The land court is a court of limited jurisdiction, created for a special purpose, that of carrying into effect what is known as the Torrens title scheme, derives all of its power from the statutes relating to it, and can exercise no power not found within those statutes.” The Bretons’ petition and CPS’s counterclaim both are breach of contract actions over which the land court does not
Substantive Criminal Law
Case Brief Mod 1
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiffs,
v.
Monte Dale THOMPSON, Defendant.
Hawaii Supreme Court (1986)
Parties: [Parties to the case]
U.S. (Plaintiff) v. Thompson (Defendant)
Facts: [Briefly state the relevant facts of the case that the court relied upon to reach their decision – normally 1-2 paragraphs]
The Bretons are sought to cancel the Agreement of Sale of a leasehold interest and for damages. The Bretons alleged that CPS had breached the Agreement by defaulting on the payment due thereon and by vacating the premises.
Prior Proceedings: [Briefly describe the circumstances that have occurred in the case to this point]
This case was originally brought before the Land Court of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. The land court, after the trial, found in favor of the Bretons against CPS. Thereafter, CPS filed a motion to set aside the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, and to set the matter for a jury trial. The land court denied the motion.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: [What was the legal issue presented to the court?]
Does the land court have jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties: [What were the arguments or objections presented to the court?]
In answer to the Breton’s petition to cancel Agreement of Sale, one of CPS’s defenses was that the land court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. Therefore any judgment rendered is invalid.
Holding/Rule of Law: [What was the legal rule(s) or principle(s) the court applied to the case?]
“The land court is a court of limited jurisdiction, created for a special purpose, that of carrying into effect what is known as the Torrens title scheme, derives all of its power from the statutes relating to it, and can exercise no power not found within those statutes.” The Bretons’ petition and CPS’s counterclaim both are breach of contract actions over which the land court does not