Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Panike & Sons Farms, Inc. v. Smith
Citation:147 Idaho 562, 212 P.3d 992 (2009)
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:
Pinike is an Oregon based corporation that raises crops including onions. Four Rivers is an Idaho corporation. They entered into a contract requiring Panike to deliver 25,000 hundredweight 75% three-inch minimum field run onions to Four Rivers from fields specified by Four Rivers, for the price of $4.75 per cwt. The field selection clause stated the buyer will specify fields. On October 3, 2006, Panike attempted to deliver two truck loads of onions to Four Rivers’s packing shed. When Mr. Panike arrived, the Four Rivers asked him whether the onions were from the specified fields. When answered negative, the Four Rivers rejected the onions. Panike then inspected the onions and found the onions were 89% three-inch minimum or larger. On November 22, 2006, Panike filed suit against Four Rivers in its corporate capacity.
- 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.