Confirm favorite deletion?
Corporations Keyed to Hamilton
Lehrman v. Cohen
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:
Giant Food Inc., (Giant), is controlled by the Lehrman and Cohen families each owning equal voting stock designated as Class AC (held by the Cohen family) and Class AL (held by the Lehrmans). Each class is entitled to elect two members of Giant’s four-member board of directors. A dispute arose within the Lehrman family and to end the dispute, an arrangement was made permitting Plaintiff to acquire all of the Class AL stock. In addition, the arrangement established, and the stockholders unanimously ratified, a fifth directorship to resolve a dead lock which would have continued if the equal division of voting power between the AL and AC stock were to continue. A third class of stock was created called AD stock that had the power to elect one director but was not entitled to dividend or liquidation rights except repayment of par value. By resolution of the board of directors, the third class of stock was issued to Joseph B. Danzansky who elected himself as Giant’s fifth director. In 1964 the holders of AC and AD stock voted together against the holders of AL stock to elect Danzansky president of Giant replacing Defendant who had been president of Giant since its incorporation. Danzansky then resigned as director and elected in his place, Millard F. West, Jr., a former AL director. Plaintiff then brought this suit.
- 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.