SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Conflict of Laws Keyed to Brilmayer
Baker v. General Motors Corp.
Citation:
522 U.S. 222 (1998)Facts
Ronald Elwell worked for Defendant, General Motors Corporation (“GM”), in the Engineering Analysis Group from 1959 to 1989. In May 1991, Ronald appeared as a witness for the plaintiffs in a product liability action against GM in Georgia and testified that the GM pickup truck fuel system was inferior to competing products. The following month, Ronald sued GM in Michigan state court, alleging wrongful discharge and other tort and contract claims. GM counterclaimed, alleging that Ronald had breached his fiduciary duty to GM by disclosing privileged and confidential information and misappropriating documents. In August 1992, Ronald and GM settled. Ronald received a sum of money and agreed to the Michigan court’s entry of a permanent injunction preventing him from disclosing GM’s trade secrets and other confidential information or from testifying against GM without prior written consent of GM. The injunction included an exception that stated that the provisions would not interfere with Ronald’s participation in the ongoing Georgia suit. In the six years since their settlement, Ronald testified against GM in Georgia and in several other jurisdictions where Ronald had been subpoenaed to testify.
In September 1991, Plaintiffs, Kenneth and Steven Baker, sued GM in Missouri state court to recover for the death of their mother in a highway accident in Missouri. GM removed the case to a federal court, and the Bakers subpoenaed Ronald. GM objected to Ronald’s appearance on the ground that the Michigan injunction barred his testimony. The Missouri district court allowed the Bakers to depose Ronald and to call him as a witness at trial. Ultimately, the jury awarded the Bakers $11.3 million. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment of the lower court, finding that the trial court erroneously relied on Missouri’s policy favoring disclosure of relevant, non-privileged information because of its strong public policy in favor of full faith and credit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Bakers’ petition for certiorari.
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.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.
Topic Resources
Topic Outline 