Civil Procedure Keyed to Friedenthal
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover
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:
Respondent has the exclusive right granted by movie distributors to first run pictures in the San Bernardino area. Petitioner, which had built a drive-in theatre 11 miles away, notified Respondent that it considered bringing an antitrust suit against Respondent. Respondent then brought a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in which it sought two things: (i) a declaration that the grant of clearance between the two theatres was not in violation of the antitrust laws and (ii) pending resolution of the lawsuit, an injunction to prevent Petitioner from bringing an antitrust lawsuit. Petitioner counterclaimed denying the threats and claimed the clearances were unreasonable. Petitioner also alleged a conspiracy existed between Respondent and the distributors which violated antitrust laws and asked for treble damages. Respondent also demanded a jury trial. The District Court viewed the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and the conspiracy claim as equitable and therefore thought they co uld be tried by the court before going to the jury on the antitrust charges. The Court of Appeals stated that the question of whether the right to a jury trial existed was to be judged by Respondent’s complaint read as a whole. It held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district judge to try the equitable case first even though this might, through collateral estoppel, prevent a full jury trial of the counterclaim which would be as effectively stopped by an equity injunction.
- 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.