Confirm favorite deletion?
Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Reves v. Ernst & Young
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:
The Farmer’s Cooperative (Coop), as part of an “investment program”, offered high interest, unsecured, not of a fixed term demand notes, selling them to the public and to its members. The profits gleaned from the sale of notes funded the conventional operations of the Coop, thus, once the Coop went bankrupt, Reves and others that procured notes brought an action against the Coop’s accountant, Ernst & Young (Defendant). The suit alleges that Ernst & Young deliberately raised the value of the assets, stating that Ernst & Young were in violation of state securities laws and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Reves triumphed at trial for both federal and state claims, securing a $6.1 million dollar judgment. Ernst & Young appealed, contending that the 1934 Act did not list promissory notes as “securities”. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted Ernst & Young’s contention and reversed the district court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- 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.