Connection lost
Server error
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Company 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: A coal company breached its promise to restore a farm after strip-mining. The court awarded damages based on the small decrease in the farm’s value ($300), not the much larger cost to actually perform the restoration ($29,000).
Legal Significance: Establishes the “diminution in value” measure of damages for breach of contract when the cost of performance is grossly disproportionate to the economic benefit gained, especially where the breached provision is incidental to the contract’s main purpose.
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Company 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
Plaintiffs Willie and Lucille Peevyhouse leased their farm to the defendant, Garland Coal & Mining Company, for a five-year period for strip-mining operations. The lease contract contained specific covenants requiring Garland to perform restorative and remedial work on the property at the conclusion of the lease. Garland performed all its obligations under the contract except for the remedial work. The estimated cost to perform the restorative work was approximately $29,000. However, expert testimony established that Garland’s failure to perform the work diminished the market value of the Peevyhouses’ farm by only $300. The plaintiffs sued for $25,000 in damages for the breach. The trial court jury, instructed to consider both the cost of performance and the diminution in value, awarded the plaintiffs $5,000. Both parties appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a contract provision to perform remedial work on land is breached, and the cost of performance is grossly disproportionate to the resulting increase in the property’s market value, is the proper measure of damages the cost of performance or the diminution in value?
The proper measure of damages is the diminution in value. The court 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
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 a contract provision to perform remedial work on land is breached, and the cost of performance is grossly disproportionate to the resulting increase in the property’s market value, is the proper measure of damages the cost of performance or the diminution in value?
Conclusion
This case is a leading, though controversial, authority for the "economic waste" 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 reprehenderi
Legal Rule
Where a contract provision is merely incidental to the main purpose 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 exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
Legal Analysis
The court confronted two conflicting rules for measuring damages: the cost 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: When a contract provision is incidental to the main purpose