Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Johnson v. Hicks Case Brief

Court of Appeals of Oregon1981Docket #219609
626 P.2d 938 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2431 51 Or. App. 667 Property Remedies Family Law

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
4 min read

tl;dr: After a woman’s ex-relatives removed an irrigation pipe from her property, the court ruled the pipe was a permanent fixture. It held the pipe belonged to her land, which she received in a divorce, regardless of a secret agreement classifying it as personal property.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies the test for fixtures, emphasizing that the controlling intent is objectively inferred from the circumstances of installation. A private agreement characterizing an item as personalty is not binding on a subsequent landowner without notice.

Johnson v. Hicks 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

Plaintiff and her then-husband, Hoy Johnson, co-owned a parcel of land. In 1964, Hoy Johnson and his brother-in-law, defendant Neil Hicks, installed an irrigation system to serve both their properties, sharing costs and labor. The system was essential for irrigating pastureland in a semi-arid region. In 1967, amid the Johnsons’ marital problems, Hoy Johnson and Hicks executed a private written agreement declaring the system to be their joint personal property, intending to prevent plaintiff from gaining an interest. Plaintiff was unaware of this agreement. In 1969, a divorce decree awarded plaintiff the family home and the portion of the land on which part of the irrigation pipe was located. The decree did not specifically mention the system. For ten years following the divorce, plaintiff continued to use the water from the pipe on her property. In 1979, Hicks entered plaintiff’s land and removed approximately 140 feet of the pipe, cutting off her water supply. Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to restore the pipe, claiming it was a fixture that passed to her with the real property.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the portion of an irrigation system located on the plaintiff’s land become a fixture that passed to her as part of the real property awarded in her divorce decree, despite a private agreement between the original installers characterizing it as personalty?

Yes. The irrigation pipe was a fixture that became part of the 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 i

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 portion of an irrigation system located on the plaintiff’s land become a fixture that passed to her as part of the real property awarded in her divorce decree, despite a private agreement between the original installers characterizing it as personalty?

Conclusion

This case establishes that fixture status is determined by objective manifestations of 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 exercita

Legal Rule

To determine if an article is a fixture, courts apply a three-part 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 tem

Legal Analysis

The court applied the three-part fixture test from *First State etc. Bank 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

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An item attached to land is a fixture if the objective
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 occaec

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?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More