Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Associations Keyed to Hamilton
Gateway Potato Sales v. G.B. Investment Co.
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:
Gateway Potato Sales (Gateway) (Plaintiff), a creditor of Sunworth Packing Limited Partnership (Sunworth) (Defendant), brought suit to recover funds for goods it had provided to Sunworth (Defendant). Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 29-319 imposes liability on limited partners who control the business; therefore, Plaintiff also sought recovery from Sunworth (Defendant) as a general partner and from G.B. Investment Co. (Defendant), a limited partner. At trial, G.B. Investment’s (Defendant) vice-president, Anderson, testified in his affidavit that G.B. Investment (Defendant) had exercised no control over the daily operation and management of the limited partnership, Sunworth (Defendant). This testimony, however, was contradicted by the affidavit testimony of the president of Sunworth (Defendant), Ellsworth. According to him, G.B. Investment’s (Defendant) employees Anderson and McHolm controlled the day-to-day management of the limited partnership (Defendant) and they made Ellsworth account to them for almost everything he did. G.B. Investment (Defendant) moved for summary judgment, insisting that there was no evidence that the circumstances described in A.R.S. § 29-319 had occurred in this case. It argued that, as a limited partner, it was not liable to the creditors of Sunworth (Defendant) except to the extent of its investment. The trial court agreed and granted G.B. Investment’s (Defendant) motion for summary judgment. Gateway (Plaintiff) appealed from the judgment and the denial of its motion for reconsideration, arguing that conflicting evidence of material facts existed.
- 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.