Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
White v. Berenda Mesa Water Dist.
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 Defendant, Berenda Mesa Water Dist. (the "Defendant"), sought bids for a four entity construction project. Plaintiff 1, White ("Plaintiff 1"), was the low bidder on one segment of the project, a regulating reservoir. Plaintiff 1 filed a surety bond by Plaintiff 2, Aetna ("Plaintiff 2"), for $42,789. Plaintiff 1's bid was $427,890, much lower then the nearest bid of $494,320. Plaintiff 1 determined there was "an error of computation" in their bid, and requested in a writing to the Defendant, prior to the acceptance of its bid, that its bid be withdrawn and its deposit returned. After meeting with its attorney, the Defendant's board voted to accept Plaintiff 1's bid, despite the fact that Plaintiff 1 attempted to withdraw it. Plaintiff 1 then advised the board in writing that it rescinded its bid. The Defendant then accepted the next lowest bid, and kept Plaintiff 1's surety bond. Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 brought suit for rescission of the contract and return of the bid bond. The lower court found that Plaintiff 1 miscalculated the amount of hard rock that needed to be excavated. This was a material mistake and a mistake of judgment.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.