Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
Arbitron, Inc. v. Tralyn Broadcasting, Inc.
Citation:400 F.3dd 130 (2005), aff'd without published opinion following remand, 328 Fed. Appx. 755 (2009)
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:
Plaintiff licenses its copyrighted listener data to regional radio stations, which then use the data to attract advertisers. In 1997, Plaintiff entered into a Station License Agreement with Defendant to receive and use the listener data. The License charged Defendant $1,729.57 per month for the use of the reports for a single station. Additionally, the License Agreement contained an “escalation clause” that stated if Defendant or its successor acquired additional radio stations in the same or nearby markets, a new license fee would be charged. Upon acquiring the new stations, Defendant was to notify Plaintiff so that Plaintiff could determine a new fee. According to the escalation clause, any new fee would be set at Plaintiff’s discretion.
In October 1999, Defendant was purchased by JMD, which controlled four other stations in the area. Neither JMD nor Defendant informed Plaintiff that JMD operated five stations. In June 2000, Plaintiff discovered that JMD operated multiple stations and sent JMD an invoice notifying it of a payment increase and claimed payment of the shortfall in fees from the time of JMD’s purchase of Defendant in October 1999. However, JMD never paid the invoices and refused to pay anything.
- 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.