Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Johnson v. Colip
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:
An attorney, Gary Colip, was hired to represent and incorporate a corporation created to serve as a general partner in multiple limited partnerships. In order to invest in multiple oil companies, the limited partnerships were created, with Colip drafting the prospectus given to prospective investors. Colip was also present at the potential investor’s meetings, providing answers to the legal queries regarding the prospectus. Allen and Li Yen Johnson contracted to purchase partnership interests but shortly after filed complaints stating that due to the prospectus containing misstatements or omissions of material fact that the interests in the partnerships were sold to them in violation of a state statute. With the Johnsonsamending their complaint at a later date, alleging that Coliplater amended their complaint to claim that Colip, with the other defendants, took part in the drafting of the deceiving prospectus. Colipmoved for summary judgment on the complaints, and the claims were consolidated by the court. Colip was granted summary judgment in his favor by the trial court, and the Johnsons appealed. The court of appeals reversed, and Colin 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.