Harvey v. Dow Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Parents’ general promises to convey land, coupled with their active support of their daughter building a house on it, led the court to remand for consideration of an implied promise under promissory estoppel.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that conduct, not just express words, can form the basis of an enforceable promise under promissory estoppel, especially when substantial, foreseeable reliance occurs, such as constructing a home on land.
Harvey v. Dow Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Teresa Harvey’s parents, the Dows, owned 125 acres of land and had a general, non-specific plan to transfer land to their children. Teresa, relying on these general assurances and with her parents’ permission, initially placed a mobile home on their property. Later, she decided to build a permanent house. Her father, Jeffrey Dow Sr., agreed to the location, obtained the building permit (in his name, as Teresa lacked sufficient road frontage), and substantially participated in the construction of the $200,000 house. The Dows initially agreed to finance the house via their home equity line, though Teresa ultimately used life insurance proceeds. After the house was completed and family relations deteriorated, the Dows refused to convey the land. Teresa sued, claiming promissory estoppel. The trial court found the Dows’ general statements too indefinite to constitute an enforceable promise. Teresa appealed, arguing the court failed to consider the Dows’ actions in conjunction with their statements.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in failing to consider whether the Dows’ conduct, in conjunction with their generalized statements of intent to convey land, could give rise to an implied promise enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, given Teresa Harvey’s substantial reliance by building a house on their property?
Yes. The judgment was vacated and remanded. The Superior Court erred by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the trial court err in failing to consider whether the Dows’ conduct, in conjunction with their generalized statements of intent to convey land, could give rise to an implied promise enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, given Teresa Harvey’s substantial reliance by building a house on their property?
Conclusion
This case significantly reinforces that promissory estoppel can be established through conduct Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer
Legal Rule
A promise supporting a claim of promissory estoppel need not be express Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est l
Legal Analysis
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the trial court improperly focused Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor si
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A promise supporting a promissory estoppel claim can be implied from