Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Friedenthal
A.F.A. Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch
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:
A.F.A. Tours, Inc. (Plaintiff) sued its former employee Whitchurch (Defendant). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant stole confidential information such as customer lists from Plaintiff after Defendant ceased employment with Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant used or intended to use such information in order to compete with Plaintiff. Plaintiff requested compensatory damages in excess of $50,000 and punitive damages of $250,000. New York law allowed punitive damages if there was willful and wanton misappropriation. Defendant argued that the plaintiff did not satisfy the jurisdictional amount because he only acquired two customers to sign on to tours and that the information he used was not confidential. The District Court dismissed the case, ruling, sua sponte, that there was “no reasonable possibility” that Plaintiff could be awarded at least $50,000 in damages. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the District Court applied an incorrect standard in making this deter mination.
- 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.