Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Blum
Right Field Rooftops, LLC v. Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC
Citation:87 F. Supp. 3d 874 (2015)
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 January 2004, the Cubs entered into a License Agreement (the Agreement) with the Plaintiffs. The Agreement permitted Plaintiffs to continue their business of wining and dining customers on the rooftops of buildings while watching the baseball game at Wrigley Field. The Agreement required Plaintiffs to pay the Cubs 17% of their profits, and in return, the Cubs agreed not to build any barricades that would block the long-distance viewing of the game. One exception permitted the Cubs to expand Wrigley Field if a governmental authority approved that expansion. In 2009, the Ricketts family purchased the Cubs and announced plains to expand the stadium, and one expansion appeared to block the rooftop view of the game. The Landmark Commission subsequently approved the expansion, and Plaintiffs filed suit.
- 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.