Connection lost
Server error
Pile v. Pedrick 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 landowner whose building foundation unintentionally encroached a few inches onto a neighbor’s land was ordered by mandatory injunction to remove it, even at great expense, because the neighbor had an absolute right to their property and refused all other remedies.
Legal Significance: This case exemplifies the strict, absolutist view of a landowner’s right to exclude, establishing that even a minor, unintentional encroachment can be subject to a mandatory injunction for removal, prioritizing property rights over a balancing of hardships.
Pile v. Pedrick 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
The defendants, Pedrick et al., intending to build a factory wall entirely on their own land, hired a district surveyor to establish the property line. Relying on the surveyor’s markings, they constructed a foundation. A subsequent survey revealed that the initial survey was mistaken and the defendants’ foundation stones unintentionally encroached 1 and 3/8 inches onto the plaintiffs’ (Pile’s) property below the surface. The wall built atop the foundation was entirely within the defendants’ property line. The defendants offered to make the wall a party wall or, alternatively, to pay damages for the permanent trespass, both of which the plaintiffs refused. The defendants then offered to enter the plaintiffs’ property to chip off the encroaching ends of the stones, offering to pay for any resulting inconvenience or injury. The plaintiffs also refused this offer. Consequently, the only way for the defendants to remove the encroachment was to tear down and rebuild their entire factory wall from their side of the property line, at a substantial cost. The trial court issued a decree compelling the removal but divided the costs due to the circumstances.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must a court of equity issue a mandatory injunction compelling a landowner to remove a minor, unintentional subsurface encroachment on an adjacent property, even at great expense, when the aggrieved landowner refuses to accept monetary damages or permit entry for a less costly removal?
Yes, the defendants must remove the encroaching foundation from the plaintiffs’ land. 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 occae
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
Must a court of equity issue a mandatory injunction compelling a landowner to remove a minor, unintentional subsurface encroachment on an adjacent property, even at great expense, when the aggrieved landowner refuses to accept monetary damages or permit entry for a less costly removal?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent for the principle that the right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qu
Legal Rule
A landowner has an absolute right to the exclusive possession of their 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 p
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis rests on a rigid and absolute conception of property 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 lab
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A minor (1 3/8 inch), unintentional subsurface encroachment is a trespass
