Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Burton
Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association
Citation:55 Cal. 4th 1169, 291 P.3d 316, 151 Cal. Rptr.3d 93
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:
Lance and Pamela Workmans (collectively “the Workmans”) (plaintiffs) failed to make their loan payments on time. The Workmans restructured their $776,380.24 debt with Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association (hereinafter “Fresno-Madera”) (defendant) into a new agreement. Allegedly, two weeks before the new agreement was signed, Fresno-Madera’s vice president promised the Workmans that he would extend the loan for two years in exchange for additional collateral consisting solely of two ranches. The Workmans failed to make timely payments under the new agreement, and Fresno-Madera initiated foreclosure proceedings on the Workmans’ properties. At trial, the Workmans argued that the vice president’s representations were admissible evidence under the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. The trial court disagreed. Under the reasoning of Bank of America etc. Association v. Pendergrass, the trial court concluded that the fraud exception did not allow parol evidence of promises that contradicted the terms of the written agreement. The appellate court reversed.
- 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.