Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Associations Keyed to Hamilton
Basic Inc. v Levinson
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:
Before December 20, 1979, Basic Inc. (Defendant) was a publicly traded company mainly involved in the business of manufacturing chemical refractors for the steel industry. Beginning in 1976, Combustion Engineering, Inc., a company producing aluminum refractors, sought a merger with Basic (Defendant). During 1977 and 1978, Defendant made three public statements denying it was engaged in merger negotiations. On December 18, 1978k, Defendant asked the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares and issued a release stating it had been “approached” by another company regarding a merger. On December 20, 1978, Defendant announced publicly its approval of Combustion’s tender offer for all outstanding shares of Basic (Defendant). Levinson (Plaintiff), a shareholder of Basic (Defendant), then brought a class action against Defendant and its directors claiming that Defendant had violated S 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act as it had issued three false or misleading public statements. Plaintiff argued that the class was injured because class members sold Basic (Defendant) shares at artificially depressed prices in a market affected by Defendant’s misleading statements and in reliance thereon. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, holding that as a matter of law, any misstatements made by Defendant were immaterial. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Defendant’s statements were misleading. Defendant 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.