Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Harvey v. Dow Case Brief

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine2008Docket #1769313
2008 ME 192 962 A.2d 322 2008 Me. LEXIS 194 2008 WL 5342089

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

General Brief
3 min read

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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

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
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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+