Civil Procedure Keyed to Hazard
Omni Capital International v. Rudolf Wolff & 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:
Omni Capital International, Ltd. and Omni Capital Corporation (Defendant) traded on the London Metals Exchange. In order to facilitate this practice, they enlisted the assistance of Rudolf Wolff & Co. (Third Party Defendant), a British corporation that served as a broker, and James Gourlay (Third Party Defendant), a British citizen who was Wolff’s representative with Defendant. After the IRS refused to allow tax deductions by Defendant investors due to the fact that the investments were not arm’s-length transactions, the investors (Plaintiffs) sued Defendant for fraud in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Lousiana. Defendant impleaded Third Part Defendants, alleging that they were responsible for improper trading activities. Third Part Defendants sought dismissal of the claims, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court of appeals ruled in favor of Third Part Defendants.
- 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.