Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Marquette Cement Manufacturing Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
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:
Marquette Cement Manufacturing Company (Marquette) (plaintiff) sold cement. Marquette had two divisions. One division, Concrete Pipe, always obtained air-entrained cement, which had an indistinguishable appearance from standard cement. The other division, Rock Products, always obtained regular cement and always added its own air to the cement. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (L and N) (defendant) inadvertently conveyed a carload of air-entrained cement intended for Concrete Pipe to Rock Products. The bill of filling for the shipment demonstrated that the cement was air-entrained, yet the railroad assistant in charge of the mistake did not recognize what the designation implied or that there was any difference between the cement shipped to Concrete Pipe and the cement sent to Rock Products. Rock Products added air to the air-entrained cement, which contractor workers utilized as a part of a construction project. That cement later must be removed and redone. Marquette sued L & N, looking for consequential damages for: (1) the estimation of the carload of cement, (2) the freight charges, (3) the cost of replacing the cement in the construction projects, and (4) the amount paid to a concrete-testing laboratory.
- 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.