Wills Trusts & Estates keyed to Dukeminier
National Academy of Sciences v. Cambridge Trust Co
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:
Troland was the widow of Leonard T. Troland. He left all of his real and personal property in trust with the Cambridge Trust Company bank with the net income of the trust, after expenses to be paid to or deposited to the account of his wife, Troland. He also provided that on his wife’s death or second marriage, the bank would transfer the trusteeship to the National Research Council of Washington, D.C. to constitute a trust to be known as the Troland Foundation for Research in Psychophysics. Troland remarried on February 13, 1945 and became Florence R. Flynn. She continued to receive disbursements from the bank. She instructed the bank to mail the payments in her same name to her brother-in-law (who was married to her sister.) Her sister would endorse them and forward them to Troland who bore a different name. Troland would endorse the checks as “Florence Troland” and return them to her sister who would deposit them in the bank. The bank did not learn of her remarriag e until December 25, 1967.
- 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.