Commercial Law Keyed to Warren
Loucks v. Albuquerque National Bank
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 plaintiff-appellants, Richard A. Loucks and Del Martinez (the “plaintiffs”) were business partners in the name of L & M Paint and Body Shop in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Prior to March 1962, Martinez operated a business under the name Del’s Paint and Body Shop. Martinez did his banking with defendant bank Albuquerque National Bank (the “defendant”) and dealt with Mr. Kopp, the vice-president of the bank. In February 1962, Martinez borrowed $500 from the defendant and deposited it into his bank account. On March 15, 1962, the plaintiffs formed a partnership in the name of L & M Paint and Body Shop. They opened a business bank account with the defendant and deposited $620. Two payments were made on the note for the $500 Martinez borrowed from the defendant. The payments were made with checks drawn on the plaintiff’s business bank account. Eventually, Martinez failed to make payments on the note and the defendant sued for recovery. On March 14, 1963, the amount remaini ng on the note was $402. Mr. Kopp wrote to L & M on behalf of the defendant stating that the business account had been charged the remaining $402 owed by Martinez. The following Monday, both plaintiffs met with Mr. Kopp to explain that the $402 was the personal indebtedness of Martinez rather than a partnership obligation. Mr. Kopp failed to re-credit the business account and with a remaining balance of $3.66, the account was closed. The defendant failed honor nine or ten checks written in the month of March that would have been honored had the defendant not debited the business account $402. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $402, but the plaintiffs appealed claiming the trial court erred in taking from the jury certain questions regarding damages.
- 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.