Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Martino v. McDonald’s System, 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:
The Plaintiffs, Louis J. Martino (Martino) and McDonald’s Drive-In of Ottumwa, Iowa, Inc. (Plaintiffs), filed a two count anti-trust complaint against the Defendant, McDonald’s System, Inc. (Defendant). In 1962, Martino and three of his brothers not involved in this action had entered into a franchise and lease agreement with Defendant. The contract in that franchise agreement provided that neither Martino nor his brothers acquire a financial interest in a competing self-service food business. After Martino’s son purchased a Burger King franchise, and Defendant brought suit against Martino and his three brothers. The parties entered into a consent agreement in 1973 ending the litigation. Plaintiffs then brought this action alleging that the enforcement of the anti-acquisition agreement between Martino’s son and Defendant in the 1962 franchise agreement violated the Sherman anti-trust act. Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 13(a) relating to compulsory counterclaims precluded the action, in addition to stating that res judicata precluded the claim.
- 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.