Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Lewis v. Mobil Oil Corp.
Citation:438 F.2d 500 (1971).
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:
In May 1963, Lewis purchased used hydraulic equipment for his sawmill. The equipment was in good operating condition and was stored until November 1964. After the equipment was installed, Lewis requested his Mobil oil dealer provide him with the proper hydraulic fluid. Lewis informed the dealer that the machinery was operated by a gear-type pump. His dealer recommended Ambrex 810 a mineral oil with no additives. Within a few days the oil began to change colors, foam over, and get hot. By April 1965 the system broke down and a new system was installed. Mobil continued to suggest and supply Ambrex 810 even after Lewis asked his dealer to verify it was the correct oil. From April 1965 to April 1967 six new pumps were installed in the system. In April 1967, Lewis switched to a Tyrone pump. Again Mobil suggested Ambrex 810 and the system broke down three weeks later. On May 9, 1967, a Mobil engineer and a representative from the pump manufacturer went to the sawmill. The engineer suggested certain chemical additives be added to the oil and the system worked satisfactorily up until the time of trial.
- 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.