Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Associations Keyed to Bainbridge
Cheff v. Mathes
Citation:199 A.2d 548 (1964)
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:
Holland Furnace Company manufactures warm air furnaces, air conditioning equipment, and other home heating equipment. At the time of the relevant transactions, the board was composed of seven individual defendants. Cheff had been Holland’s chief executive officer since 1933. In the last week of June 1957, the trading volume of Holland’s stock increased to 37,800 from 24,200. Cheff met with Arnold H. Maremount, who was the president of Maremount Automotive Products, Inc. On August 23, 1957, at the meeting between Maremount and Cheff, Cheff was informed that Motor Products then owned 100,000 shares of Holland stock. Maremount then demanded that he be named to the board of directors, but Cheff refused to consider it. Subsequent to this meeting, substantial number of shares of Holland were purchased. As a result, the market price arose. On February, 1958, plaintiffs, owners of 60 shares of Holland stock, filed a derivative suit, alleging that the purchases of stock by Holland in 1957 were for the purpose of insuring the perpetuation of control by the incumbent directors.
- 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.