Torts Keyed to Henderson
Wilkinson v. Powe
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:
Jay D. Wilkinson (Plaintiff) sued Powe and Powe’s company, Shamrock Creamery (Defendants) for wrongfully procuring a breach of Plaintiff’s contract with milk farmers. Plaintiff had established two routes for hauling milk from farmers to two creameries, Shamrock and Pontiac. Later, Plaintiff and the farmers memorialized their arrangement by a written agreement. Shortly after the execution of the agreement, Powe informed Plaintiff that he wanted to take over one of the routes and, in exchange, offered Plaintiff the trade-in value of his truck and a position at Shamrock. Plaintiff refused. Subsequently, Powe sent a letter to the farmers doing business with Plaintiff that Shamrock would no longer accept milk if it was delivered by Plaintiff. Eventually, Plaintiff was forced to abandon his milk routes. Afterwards, Shamrock hauled the milk of nearly all farmers formerly under contract with Plaintiff. A jury found for Plaintiff and awarded $4,000 in damages. Thereafter, a new trial was granted and the trial judge entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding “[t]o find for the plaintiff is a sympathetic attempt to give legal security to one, who, in a precarious position acted unwisely.”
- 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.