Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Associations Keyed to Hamilton
Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows v. Ringling
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Ringling (P) and Haley (D) entered a stock pooling agreement by which they agreed to always vote their shares together, and in the case of disagreement, an arbiter would be provided, one Loos. They made this agreement because it would give them enough voting strength to elect five of the seven directors. In 1946, Ringling (P) and Haley (D) agreed to elect themselves and family as directors, but could not agree on a suitable fifth director. There was arbitration, and the arbiter, Loos, found that Ringling’s proposed director, Dunn, should be Haley’s (D) vote. Haley (D) refused, and abstained from the fifth vote. Without enforcement of Loos’ decision, one of North’s candidates would instead become fifth director. Ringling (P) brought suit for enforcement, while Haley (D) contended that their voting agreement was illegal. The court found that the agreement was valid, and a new election must be held upholding the voting agreement. Haley (D) appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.