Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.
Citation:251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (1957).
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
On April 6, 1956, defendant published an advertisement in the Minneapolis newspaper offering for sale on “Saturday 9 A.M. Sharp” three brand new fur coats worth up to $100.00 for $1 each. The advertisement further stated it was “First Come First Served.” Similarly, on April 13, defendant published another advertisement offering for sale on “Saturday 9 A.M.” two mink scarves worth $89.50 for $1.00 each and one black lapin stole worth $139.50 for $1.00 each. The advertisement again stated it was “First Come First Served.” On each of the Saturdays, the plaintiff was the first customer at the appropriate counter at defendant’s store and demanded the coat and stole as advertised. However, defendant refused to sell the coat and stole to plaintiff for $1.00 each claiming there was a “house rule” that the offer was intended for women only and no sales would be made to men.
- 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.