Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Duncan
Philadelphia Electric Company v. Hercules, Inc.
Citation:762 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. 1985)
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:
Philadelphia Industrial Chemical Corporation was the original owner and operator of a hydrocarbon resin manufacturing plant before ceasing operation and selling the land to Gould, Inc. This new owner leased the land for a bit before selling it to Philadelphia Electric Company (plaintiff). The plaintiff inspected the site prior to purchase, learning that Gould’s tenant had spilled on the site. After purchasing the land, the plaintiff expended nearly $400,000 in cleaning up the pond resin left from these spills. The plaintiff did not operate on the property but instead leased a portion of the land to American Refining Group, Inc. However, an inspection by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources nevertheless found resinous materials seeping into the Delaware River from the property. The plaintiff sued Gould and the new corporate owner of Philadelphia Industrial Chemical Corporation, Hercules, Inc. (defendant), for private and public nuisance, arguing that their operations had caused the pollution. At trial, the plaintiff presented no evidence against Gould.
- 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.