SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Organizations Keyed to Macey
Lehrman v. Cohen
Citation:
222 A.2d 800 (1966)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:
Giant Food Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 1935 by defendant N.M. Cohen and Samuel Lehrman, deceased father of plaintiff Jacob Lehrman. The company was controlled by the Cohen and Lehrman families, each of which owned equal quantities of voting stock designated as Class AC (held by Cohen) and Class AL (held by Lehrman). To implement the arrangement, the company’s certificate of incorporation was amended to create a third class of voting stock, designated Class AD common stock. By the resolution of the board, the share of Class AD stock was issued to defendant Joseph B. Danzansky, who had served as counsel to the company. From the outset, the defendant N.M. Cohen was president of the company. A resolution was adopted at the annual shareholders’ meeting to give Danzansky a fifteen year executive employment contract at an annual salary of $67,600. Plaintiff challenges these actions.
- 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.
5m 30s
