Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Feder v. Martin Marietta Corp.
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:
As chief executive and president of Martin Marietta Corp, Bunker was responsible for approving all of Marietta’s stock transactions. When Marietta’s directors learned that Marietta had a $10 million investment in Sperry Rand they permitted Bunker to become a director there. Once Bunker was a director at Sperry Rand, Marietta purchased over one hundred thousand extra shares of Sherry Rand and after the purchase transpired, Bunker resigned. His letter of resignation stated that he became a director at Sperry Rand due to Marietta owned a “substantial number” of Sperry Rand shares. Within six months of purchasing the additional shares, Marietta sold all of them for a profit. A shareholder of Sherry Rand, Feder, brought suit under § 16(b) in order to recover for Sperry Rand the profits from the sold shares on the idea that through its deputy Bunker, Marietta was actually a director of Sperry Rand when the shares were purchased. The action was dismissed by the lower court.
- 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.