Connection lost
Server error
Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison 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: An Arkansas court rejected the centuries-old “local action rule,” holding it could hear a case for damages to real property located in Missouri because the defendant corporation was domiciled in Arkansas and could not be sued elsewhere.
Legal Significance: This case represents a landmark judicial rejection of the common law local action rule, which traditionally divests courts of jurisdiction over claims for injury to land located outside the forum state’s territorial boundaries.
Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison 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
Planters Flying Service sued D.M. Barton in an Arkansas state court to collect a debt for spraying his cotton crop in Missouri. Barton filed a cross-complaint against Reasor-Hill Corp., an Arkansas-based insecticide manufacturer, alleging its product was defective and damaged his Missouri crop. Reasor-Hill was an Arkansas corporation not authorized to do business in Missouri and thus could not be served with process there. If the Arkansas court declined jurisdiction, Barton would have no available forum to seek a remedy against Reasor-Hill. Reasor-Hill moved to dismiss the cross-complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that an action for injury to real property is a “local action” that can only be brought in the state where the land is situated. The trial court denied the motion. Reasor-Hill then sought a writ of prohibition from the Arkansas Supreme Court to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the cross-complaint.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a state court exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a tort action for money damages resulting from an injury to real property located in another state?
Yes. The court denied the writ of prohibition, holding that the trial 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.
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
May a state court exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a tort action for money damages resulting from an injury to real property located in another state?
Conclusion
This case is a leading example of a state court judicially abrogating Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad
Legal Rule
A court may exercise jurisdiction over an action for damages to real 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 dolo
Legal Analysis
The Arkansas Supreme Court systematically dismantled the historical justifications for the local 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: Arkansas courts can hear lawsuits for damages to real property