Civil Procedure Keyed to Spencer
Surface Supplied Inc. v. Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc.
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:
Surface Supplied Inc. (Plaintiff) manufactured digital gas analyzer and depth gauge products. Its products were engraved with an image of a helmet. Plaintiff operated a website, but did not sell its products on the website. Plaintiff advertised its products on Facebook, Twitter, and in national magazines. Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc. (Defendant) sent Plaintiff a cease and desist letter, claiming that the helmet image infringed on Defendant’s federal trademarks. In response, Plaintiff sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Northern District), seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of the image was non-infringing. Subsequently, Defendant filed a trademark infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Central District). Defendant’s facilities and most of its employees were in the Central District. Plaintiff was a California corporation, and its principal place of business was in the Northern District. Plaintiff’s employees resided in the Northern District. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Northern District suit with the Northern District.
- 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.