Confirm favorite deletion?
Corporations Keyed to O’Kelley
Globe Woolen Co. v. Utica Gas & Electric Co.
Citation:121 N.E. 378 (1918)
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:
The plaintiff is the owner of two mills. The defendant generates and sells electricity for light and power. For many years, John F. Maynard has been the plaintiff’s chief stockholder, its president and a board member. He has also been a director of the defendant. As early as 1903 Greenidge, then the superintendent and later the general manager of the defendant’s electrical department, suggested to Maynard the substitution of electric power. In the fall of 1906, the contract was entered into between Maynard and Greenidge. There were other officers of the defendant who knew that the project was afoot, but they took no part in formulating it. In the letter signed by Greenidge, the defendant proposed to supply the plaintiff’s mill with electricity at a maximum rate of $.0104 per kilowatt hour. In February, 1907, letters, similar in most things to the earlier ones, were exchanged. There were, however, new provisions to the effect that the contract should apply to current used for any purposes in any extensions to the mills and that in case of shortage of electricity the plaintiff should be preferred in service over all other customers. The contract was ratified. Nothing was said to others about the new provisions. It quickly appeared that the defendant had made a losing contract; Greenidge had miscalculated the amount of steam that would be required to heat the dye houses.
- 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.