Business Associations Keyed to Hamilton
Mentor Graphics Corporation v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc.
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:
An Oregon electronics corporation, Mentor Graphics Corp. (Mentor) (Plaintiff), initiated a hostile tender offer in an effort to acquire a Delaware electronics business, Quickturn Design Systems, Inc. (Defendant). Defendant decided the offer was not adequate and adopted two defensive measures in response to the hostile takeover bid. First, a new By-Law Amendment was enacted requiring special stockholders meetings to take place 90 to 100 days following receipt of the shareholders request. Second, Defendant amended its shareholders rights plan by eliminating the “dead hand” feature and replacing it with a Deferred Redemption Plan (DRP). The effect of these amendments was to delay any special meeting and delay the ability of the new board to redeem the poison pill for six months. Plaintiff claimed that the DRP violated Delaware law and sought an injunction and declaratory judgment against it. Defendant moved for summary judgment, however, its motion was denied.
- 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.