Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
O’Conner v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc.
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:
O’Conner deposited $200,000 into an account with Foulke and R.F. Lafferty & Co, Inc., granted them total control over the funds and informed them of her lack of investing experience and that she relied upon income produced from this account to finance the cost of living. Foulke and Lafferty made investments that procured no income, causing O’Conner to file suit, claiming the funds were unsuitably invested, for a judgment of $329,000 in actual damages plus a reasonable rate of return. O’Conner also claimed Foulke and Lafferty violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, alleging negligence, fraud, intention of emotional distress and violations of state securities statutes. Lafferty’s motion as to summary judgment on the § 10(b) claim and the fraud claim was approved. O’Conner was awarded $30,000 after the state law claims were submitted to an arbitrator, with the court approving the arbitrator’s award. O’Conner 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.