Connection lost
Server error
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
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: Prospective homebuyers injured on a construction site were found not to be trespassers under Louisiana statute, as they had a legitimate reason for entry. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for the defendant home builder.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that individuals with a “legitimate reason” for conducting business, such as prospective homebuyers, are not trespassers under La.R.S. 14:63(F)(3) if entry is not forbidden, impacting landowner liability.
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes 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
Hunter and Mary Perrin, prospective homebuyers, entered a townhouse construction site in Graywood Subdivision. The property, being built by Randy Tupper Homes, had a “Tupper Homes” sign with contact information but no warnings or barricades prohibiting entry. Several homes in the subdivision were under construction and for sale. The ground was damp, and the Perrins used a makeshift walkway of wooden pallets. Mary Perrin fell on a pallet and injured her shoulder. The Perrins sued Randy Tupper Homes and its insurer. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the Perrins were trespassers under La.R.S. 14:63 because they lacked express or implied consent, despite acknowledging their legitimate reason to view the property. The trial court applied the immunity provision of La.R.S. 14:63(H) for trespassers. The Perrins appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in determining that prospective homebuyers, who entered an unfenced construction site displaying the builder’s sign, were criminal trespassers under La.R.S. 14:63, thereby entitling the defendant builder to immunity from a premises liability claim?
Yes, the trial court erred. The Perrins were not criminal trespassers because 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
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
Did the trial court err in determining that prospective homebuyers, who entered an unfenced construction site displaying the builder’s sign, were criminal trespassers under La.R.S. 14:63, thereby entitling the defendant builder to immunity from a premises liability claim?
Conclusion
This case establishes that individuals entering property with a legitimate business-related purpose, 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
Legal Rule
Under La.R.S. 14:63(F)(3), a person may enter upon immovable property of another, 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
Legal Analysis
The appellate court conducted a de novo review and found that 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 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 sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Prospective homebuyers injured on a construction site were not criminal trespassers