Contracts Keyed to Summers
Howard M. Schoor Associates, Inc. v. Holmdel Heights Construction 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:
Holmdel Heights Construction Co. (Defendant) is a real estate developer. Defendant hired Howard M. Schoor Associates, Inc. and another corporation (Plaintiffs) to conduct engineering and surveying work for one of Defendant’s developments. On April 14, 1970, Plaintiffs met with Alan Sugarman, Defendant’s attorney, to discuss outstanding bills owed to Plaintiffs. At this meeting, Defendant’s attorney wrote Plaintiffs a check from his trust account for $2,000. Plaintiffs later claimed this payment was made in good faith to ensure Plaintiffs continued their work under the agreement. On June 12, 1970, Defendant’s attorney sent a letter requesting that Plaintiffs continue their work, and enclosing a check for $1,000 from his own funds as a good faith payment. Plaintiffs completed the work but were not paid. Plaintiffs thereafter sued to recover the outstanding amount. The trial judge found that Plaintiffs’ work was crucial to Defendant’s financial success, that Defendant’s attorney had a substantial financial interest in Defendant, and that Defendant’s attorney had orally promised to guarantee Defendant’s debts if Plaintiffs continued to perform their work. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiffs and granted them a judgment of $24,105.30. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Defendant’s attorney’s promise would be unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
- 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.