Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Field
Cook Associates v. Lexington United Corp
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:
Plaintiff was an executive employment agency with offices in Chicago and Massachusetts. Defendant was a corporation with its principle place of business in Missouri. McIntosh operated the employment agency, and received a request from Runza, one of Defendant’s executives, for assistance in filling a position. The agreement between the two stated that Defendant would pay Plaintiff a fee if it hired one of Plaintiff’s referrals within two years of the referral. McIntosh sent Hoegemeir to fill the position. He was interviewed in Chicago and offered the position, but turned it down. At some point after this, McIntosh left Plaintiff and established her own employment agency. Runza contacted her again about a position and she again sent Hoegemeir. This time Hoegemeir accepted the offer. Plaintiff sued Defendant in Illinois state court to collect its fee. Defendant challenged the Illinois court’s personal jurisdiction, arguing that its only contact with Illinois was its annual participation in a trade show there. Plaintiff claimed that the original Hoegemeir interview in Chicago formed the basis for a finding that Defendant was doing business in Illinois and was therefore subject to process under the Illinois long-arm statute. The trial court found for Plaintiff and the appellate court reversed. Plaintiff appealed to the Illinois 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.
- 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.