SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Babcock
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover
Citation:
359 U.S. 500 (1959)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 Beacon Theatres built a drive-in movie theatre and notified Fox that its “first run” clearance contracts that gave certain theatres the exclusive rights to show new movies, violated antitrust laws. Before Plaintiff Beacon filed suit Fox filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief asking the district court for declaratory judgement that Fox’s clearance contracts did not violate antitrust laws and for a preliminary injunction stopping Beacon from filing a lawsuit. Beacon counterclaimed, accusing Fox of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. Beacon demanded a jury trial. The district judge, Defendant Judge Westover, found that the issues were primarily equitable, and that the issues should be tried before the district judge before proceeding to a jury. Beacon appealed, but the court of appeals upheld the order, finding that Fox’s complaint was partly making a plea for injunctive relief, which is considered an equitable remedy under the authority of a district judge to decide, and that the complaint should be read as a whole.
Beacon appealed further, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- 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.
3m 8s
1m 41s