Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Interstate Industries, Inc. v. Barclay Industries, Inc.
Citation:540 F.2d 868 (1976)
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:
Interstate is an Illinois corporation whose principal place of business is located in Illinois. Interstate is admitted to do business in Indiana and has a facility in Michigan City, Indiana. Barclay is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and manufacturing plant in New Jersey. Barclay is not admitted to do business, nor does it have property, officers or employees in Indiana. Over five years, Interstate was involved in numerous business transactions with Barclay in which goods manufactured by Barclay were delivered in Interstate’s facility in Michigan City. On August, 1973, Barclay sent a letter advising Interstate that it would be able to manufacture fiberglass panels in accordance with certain specified standards. However, on January 16, 1974, Barclay sent a letter from its New Jersey office informing Interstate that it would be unable to provide the panels requested in the purchase orders. In 1975, Interstate filed a complaint against Barclay for breach of contract and Barclay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction.
- 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.