Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Greer Properties, Inc. v. LaSalle National Bank
Citation:874 F.2d 457
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:
Old Orchard West Venture (co-seller) (co-defendant) acquired a real estate parcel. Legal title to the parcel was held by trustee LaSalle National Bank (co-seller) (co-defendant). There were two prospective buyers of the parcel: G.D. Searle Company (hereinafter “Searle”) and Greer Properties, Inc. (hereinafter “Greer”) (plaintiff). During negotiations between Searle and the Sellers, Searle’s consultants estimated the clean-up would cost more than $500,000. Searle terminated the negotiations. The Sellers then entered into negotiations with Greer. The Sellers agreed to sell the property to Greer for $1,250,000. As part of the sales contract, the Sellers were required to remove the environmental contamination at their own expense but were also allowed to terminate the contract if the cost of clean-up became “economically impracticable.” The Sellers hired a soil consultant to examine the extent of the contamination. The Sellers received a preliminary report from the soil consultant and concluded the clean-up would be economically impracticable but did not inform Greer of this conclusion. The Sellers entered back into negotiations with Searle. The soil consultant’s final report estimated the clean-up at between $190,000 and $240,000. The Sellers formally terminated their contract with Greer by sending written notice. Greer sued the Sellers.
- 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.