Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Karpinski v. Ingrasci
Citation:28 N.Y.2d 45, 268 N.E.2d 751
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:
After Dr. Ingrasci (defendant) completed his training in oral surgery, he became interested in working for Dr. Karpinski (plaintiff), an oral surgeon who had just opened up a second practice in Ithaca, New York. At the time, twenty percent of Karpinski’s practice came from patients referred to him by nearby dentists in five nearby counties. Ingrasci entered into a three-year contract to work with Karpinski in his Ithaca office. The contract contained a covenant not to compete forever with Karpinski in the fields of “dentistry and/or oral surgery” in the five nearby counties. When the contract expired, Ingrasci opened up his own oral surgery practice in Ithaca. By that time, ninety percent of Karpinski’s practice came from referrals from nearby dentists. Karpinski sued Ingrasci for violating his covenant not to compete.
- 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.