Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
Kakaes v. George Washington University
Citation:790 A.2d 581 (2002)
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:
Dr. Kakaes was a professor at George Washington University. The University’s Code included a term stating that a professor who will not be granted tenure will be notified of such by a certain date and if he or she is not notified, he or she will acquire tenure. Two days before this deadline, the University told Dr. Kakaes that he would not be granted tenure, but that his report would be sent to the Board of Trustees for its consideration and that he would be notified of their final decision regarding his tenure decision. Dr. Kakaes was not notified of the Board’s decision, so he brought this suit claiming that, based on the Faculty Code, because he had not been given adequate notice of the Board’s decision, he should receive the remedy specified in the University Code, which would be to receive tenure.
- 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.