Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc.
Citation:282 Neb. 848, 809 N.W.2d 725 (2011)
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:
In 1992, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant for the removal of waste. The contract expired in 2005, but after it ended, Plaintiff entered into a short-term agreement with Defendant, which expired in April 2008. Near the end of the contract, Plaintiff began to look at cheaper options and told Defendant that it would not renew the contract if it found a cheaper option.
In July 2007, Plaintiff found a cheaper option by entering into a contract with the neighboring city, but it would only begin in July 2008. Defendant agreed in July 2007 to continue under the short-term contract until July 2008. However, after hearing the short-term contract would not be renewed, Defendant unilaterally increased the rate to $60 per ton, up from $42.50 per ton.
Defendant claimed that the price was increased to compensate for losing Plaintiff’s business. It appeared that Defendant implicitly threatened to stop hauling the waste unless the increased price was paid. Plaintiff objected to the increased price, but Defendant refused to lower the cost, and Plaintiff paid the increased price until the short-term contract ended in July 2008.
- 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.