Contracts Keyed to George
Bomberger v. McKelvey
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:
John Bomberger and others (plaintiffs) orally consented to pulverize and remove a building on parcels possessed by D.P. McKelvey and others (defendants) for $3,500. Litigants moved toward developing a grocery store and parking garage on the cleared site. The oral assertion was from that point affirmed by a letter sent from respondents to plaintiffs. A fundamental component of the understanding enabled plaintiffs to rescue rare materials, for example, fortified glass and skylights from the obliterated working for use in another structure that offended parties were developing crosswise over town. Consequently, litigants were not able to secure materials for the examined supermarket and informed plaintiffs that the demolition project was canceled. Plaintiffs educated litigants that they wanted to continue with the pulverization of the building and gathering of the reinforced glass and skylights in any case. After plaintiffs finished the venture and rescued the things, they recorded suit against litigants to recuperate the agreement cost of $3,500. Respondents recorded a counter-claim against offended plaintiffs seeking damages for trespass and waste. The trial court held for plaintiffs. Defendants appealed.
- 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.