Business Associations Keyed to Hamilton
Roach v. Mead
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:
Mead (D) has acted as Roach’s (P) attorney on previous occasions. Mead (D) became partners with Berentson (D). Roach (P) wanted to invest $20,000, so he consulted with Mead (D). Roach (P) loaned the money to Mead (D) with a stated interest rate. Later, Mead (D) couldn’t repay the loan, so Roach (P) sued the partnership, alleging that they owed him money based on a theory of vicarious liability. Berentson (D) argues that the loan was outside the scope of the partnership and he therefore was not vicariously liable. The trial court found that Roach (P) acted reasonably in believing that he was receiving legal advice from Mead (D) in regards to the investment of his money, therefore, the court could find and did find Berentson (D) vicariously liable. The court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. Berentson (D) then appealed to Oregon’s Supreme Court.
- 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.