Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Calamari
R & R of Connecticut, Inc. v. Stiegler
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:
A building was initially leased by the Defendant to Pedro Ortiz ("Mr. Ortiz") on June 13, 1979. Mr. Ortiz assigned the lease to the Plaintiff on January 27, 1981. The Plaintiff ran a supermarket out of the premises. The lease's term was five and a half years, from June 15, 1979 to December 31, 1984. Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the lease, the tenant had an option to renew the lease for an additional five-year period. This option was exercisable only if the tenant sent the landlord a written notice within twelve months prior to December 31, 1984, the day the lease was to terminate. Paragraph 28 granted the tenant a right of first refusal, allowing the tenant the right to buy the property first if the landlord received an offer to buy it. The Plaintiff was notified on January 26, 1984 that due to its failure to renew the lease within one year, the lease would terminate on December 31, 1984. On February 6, 1984, the Plaintiff's attorney sent a letter to the Defendant's agent informing the agent that the Plaintiff's prior attorney had died on December 14, 1983, and that the attorney had intended, but did not due to his death, send a letter specifying that the Plaintiff wished to renew the lease. The Defendant entered into an agreement to sell the premises on March 23, 1983 for $425,000 to McDonald's. The value of the property was only $225,000. The Plaintiff learned about this agreement to sell around February 24, 1984 and did not exercise his right of first refusal enumerated in Paragraph 28. The lower court found McDonald's offer was a bona fide offer, but contingent on the satisfaction of certain conditions. "The [lower] court concluded that Bayer's death, the large monetary loss to be suffered by the plaintiff, the speculative loss which the landlord might incur, and the customer loss from the neighborhood community justified equitable relief for the plaintiff."
- 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.