Confirm favorite deletion?
Intellectual Property Keyed to Merges
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP
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:
Edwards (Plaintiff), a CPA, was employed by Arthur Andersen, LLP (Andersen) (Defendant) as a tax manager, and had signed as a condition of his employment a noncompetition agreement that prohibited him, for an 18-month period, from performing the same type of professional services he had provided while at the firm, for any client on whose account he had worked during 18 months prior to his termination. The agreement also prohibited Plaintiff from soliciting any client of the firm’s office where he worked for a year after termination. When another firm bought Plaintiff’s division, as a condition of obtaining employment at the new firm, all employees were required to sign a termination of non-compete agreement (TONC) that Andersen (Defendant) demanded as consideration to release employees from the noncompetition agreement. Plaintiff would not sign the TONC, and Defendant terminated his employment. Plaintiff sued Defendant for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and anticompetitive business practices, claiming, inter alia, that the noncompetition agreement was not valid according to state statute (California Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600), which states “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” He argued it was invalid because it restrained his ability to practice his accounting profession. The trial court, finding that the noncompetition agreement was narrowly tailored and did not deprive Plaintiff of his right to practice his profession, rendered judgment for Defendant. The state’s intermediate appellate court reversed, and the state’s highest court granted review.
- 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.