Confirm favorite deletion?
Business Associations Keyed to Bainbridge
Ramos v. Estrada
Citation:8 Cal.App.4th 1070 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 833 (1992)
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:
Two groups of people separately sought from the Federal Communications Commission a permit to form a Spanish language television station in Ventura County. In June 1987, the members of Broadcast Group entered into an agreement to vote all their shares of Television, Inc. in a manner determined by a majority of them. The agreement also restricted transfer of the shares. The initial eight-member board of Television, Inc. elected Leopoldo Ramos as president. At a special directors’ meeting, Tila Estrada voted with the Ventura 41 group block to remove Ramos as president and to replace him with WAlter Ulloa. Under the June Broadcast Agreement, each of the groups were required to vote for the directors upon whom a majority of each respective group had agreed. On October, 1988, the Broadcast Group noticed another meeting to decide how its members would vote their shares for directors. All members attended except the Estradas. The Estradas declared the June Broadcast Agreement null and void.
- 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.