Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Harrison v. Fred S. James, P.A., 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:
Kenneth Harrison (Plaintiff) was previously employed as the head of the marketing department of Fred S. James, P.A., Inc. (Defendant), an insurance brokerage agency and consulting firm. Prior to hiring Plaintiff, Richard Peterson (Defendant), an executive vice-president for James, held several meetings with Plaintiff to discuss Plaintiff’s role at James. The parties never discussed a definite term of employment, but Plaintiff was led to believe he would be employed at least two years. An offer of employment was subsequently made to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff began working for James on April 7, 1980. On that day, Plaintiff signed a Memorandum of Agreement (Memorandum), which set forth the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. The Memorandum provided that the employment was to be at-will, and included an integration clause stating that the Memorandum superseded all prior agreements and understandings regarding Plaintiff’s employment. On November 25, 1980, seven months after Plaintiff began his employment, Plaintiff was terminated from his position. Plaintiff sued for wrongful discharge and breach of an oral contract for employment. Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.
- 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.