Confirm favorite deletion?
Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores
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:
Blue Chips Stamp was a corporation where nine retailers owned 90% of the stock, similar to an antitrust consent decree, Blue Chip needed to divest itself of 55% of its stock and to offer it on the market to other vendors who had utilized the stamp service in the previously. The objective of the decree was to widen the contribution of the vendors in Blue Chip. Manor Drug Stores was one of the vendors whom the consent decree was designed to benefit. However, following receipt of a prospectus from blue chip, Manor Drugs declined the offer. Manor Drugs sued under 10b-5 two years later, claiming that the prospectus falsely made the offer look unappealing so that Blue Chip could sell shares on the open market for a higher price at a later date. Manor Drug claimed that if it had been aware of the facts that it would have purchased the stock. The district court dismissed this action, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that Manor Drugs had what amounted to a “contract to purchase” under the decree, and so was a “purchaser” under the meaning of 10b-5.
- 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.