Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Noroski v. Fallet
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:
On September 25, 1975, Frank E. Noroski (Plaintiff), a civil engineer, and Ervin C. Fallet (Defendant) were involved in an auto accident. Plaintiff suffered property damage, medical expenses, and lost wages as a result. On October 10, 1975, Celina Mutual Insurance Company (Celina), Defendant’s insurer, sent Plaintiff a check for Plaintiff’s property damage. Enclosed with the check was a release form for Plaintiff to sign. Plaintiff neither cashed the check nor signed the release. On December 31, 1975, Plaintiff and Celina’s claims adjuster held a telephone conversation. During this conversation, the claims adjuster agreed to send Plaintiff an additional check. Plaintiff cashed both checks. Plaintiff later incurred additional medical expenses and lost wages. Upon Celina’s refusal to pay, Plaintiff sued Defendant. Defendant argued the affirmative defense of full and complete settlement of the claim. At trial, Defendant introduced a recording of the December 31 conversation. The trial court found that, although the claims adjuster failed to follow procedure by not stamping the word “Release” on the second check, the telephone conversation constituted an enforceable release of all claims arising from the accident. Judgment was entered for Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff 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.
- 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.