Contracts Keyed to Murray
Magliozzi v. P&T Container Service Co., Inc.
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:
Magliozzi (Plaintiff) was injured by a trash compactor owned by P&T Container Service Co., Inc. (Defendant) while working for Crusader Paper Co., Inc. (Crusader). Plaintiff sued Defendant, and Defendant brought a third-party action against Crusader for indemnification. The agreement between Defendant and Crusader is contained in a letter dated November 3, 1983. That letter does not contain an indemnification clause. When Defendant’s employees emptied the trash compactor on Crusader’s premises, they would present a “pickup ticket” to a Crusader employee, who would then sign the ticket. The back of the pickup tickets contained an indemnification clause. Nothing on the face of the tickets indicated that there were terms on the back of the tickets. The lower court granted summary judgment on the third-party complaint in favor of Crusader, finding that there was no valid contract of indemnification between Defendant and Crusader. Defendant 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.