Confirm favorite deletion?
Professional Responsibility Keyed to Hazard
Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. 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:
In making a public offering of stock, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Empire) (Defendant) was represented by Sitomer, Sitomer & Porges (Defendant). Goldberg (Defendant) was an attorney in the firm and had performed some work on the issue. Meyerhofer (Plaintiff) and Federman (Plaintiff), purchasers of Empire stock, sustained losses when the market price of the stock dropped. They brought a class action suit against Empire (Defendant), alleging, among other things, failure to disclose a large finder’s fee arrangement with Sitomer (Defendant). Bernson, Hoeniger, Freitag & Abbey represented Plaintiffs. Goldberg (Defendant) gave Bernson a copy of an affidavit to verify his non-participation in the finder’s fee omission. The district court ordered that the Bernson firm and Goldberg (Defendant) be barred from acting as counsel for Mayerhofer (Plaintiff) in this or any future action against Empire (Defendant) involving the transactions at issue here and then dismissed Meyerhofer’s (Plaintiff) complaint without prejudice. All parties 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.