Connection lost
Server error
Amoco Production Co. v. United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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: In a title dispute over a lost deed, the court held that secondary evidence, such as routine business practice, is admissible under FRE 1004 to prove the contents of the lost original, even when a potentially inaccurate copy exists in the public record.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the Best Evidence Rule, establishing that FRE 1005 (Public Records) does not preclude admission of other evidence under FRE 1004 to prove the contents of a lost original document when the accuracy of the public recording itself is in dispute.
Amoco Production Co. v. United States 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
In 1942, the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation (FFMC) conveyed land to the Newtons. The original deed is lost. The version recorded in the Summit County, Utah, Recorder’s Office shows a conveyance of the full fee simple interest. Appellants, the United States and its lessees, claim the original deed actually contained a clause reserving a one-half mineral interest to FFMC. In 1957, FFMC quitclaimed any mineral interests it held in the area, including the disputed property, to the United States. Appellees, successors in interest to the Newtons, later leased the full mineral rights and brought a quiet title action. To prove the contents of the lost 1942 deed, the appellants offered secondary evidence, including evidence of FFMC’s routine practice of reserving mineral interests and a conformed copy of the deed from a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) file. The district court excluded this evidence, reasoning that under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 1005, the existence of the recorded version precluded any other evidence of the deed’s contents. The court then granted summary judgment for the appellees.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When an original deed is lost and its contents are disputed, does Federal Rule of Evidence 1005, governing public records, bar the admission of other secondary evidence offered under FRE 1004 to prove the contents of the lost original?
No. The district court misinterpreted and misapplied the Federal Rules of Evidence. 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 c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
When an original deed is lost and its contents are disputed, does Federal Rule of Evidence 1005, governing public records, bar the admission of other secondary evidence offered under FRE 1004 to prove the contents of the lost original?
Conclusion
This decision is significant for its clear delineation between FRE 1004 and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, q
Legal Rule
Federal Rule of Evidence 1004 governs the admissibility of evidence to prove 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 cu
Legal Analysis
The Tenth Circuit reasoned that the district court fundamentally misconstrued the relationship 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. Exce
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Quiet Title Act’s “should have known” statute of limitations standard