Contracts Keyed to Summers
Bloomgarden v. Coyer
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:
Henry Bloomgarden (Plaintiff) was the president of Socio-Dynamics Industries, Inc. (SDI), a consulting and research firm. Coyer and Guy (Defendants) were real estate developers seeking to develop a segment of the Georgetown waterfront in Washington, D.C. On January 26, 1970, Plaintiff arranged for Defendants to meet one of Plaintiff’s investors, David Carley, to discuss Defendants’s development plans. Plaintiff arranged for the same group to meet with representatives of the Inland Steel Company on February 19, 1970, to discuss the same plan. At no point before either meeting did Plaintiff indicate he expected a finder’s fee for these introductions. When asked what he hoped to obtain from the project after the second meeting, Plaintiff only stated that he hoped SDI might gain work for the project. In April 1970, Coyer, Guy, and the Inland Steel Company reached an agreement regarding the development plan. In March 1970, Plaintiff sought a finder’s fee on behalf of SDI. Upon realizing he could not bring suit on behalf of SDI, Plaintiff sought a finder’s fee for himself in May 1970. Defendants refused, and Plaintiff sued them to recover a finder’s fee. The District Court granted Defendants summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiff did not expect to be compensated for his services at the time that he rendered them.
- 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.