Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Barnett
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
Citation:35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
The board of commissioners of Rockingham County did not get along well and fought over whether to approve a contract with Luten Bridge to build a bridge. After the board voted to award the contract to Luten Bridge, a coup occurred within the board, ousting certain members. In the aftermath, the board passed a resolution declaring the contract not legal and valid and directed the clerk of the board to notify Luten Bridge of that fact. Despite the notice of cancellation, Luten Bridge continued its construction of the bridge, possibly because of a rumor that one board commissioner was still urging Luten Bridge to complete the bridge.
Luten Bridge sued Rockingham County to recover payment due under a contract for the construction of a bridge. Rockingham County admitted to breaching the contract but contended that notice of its intent to cancel was given to Luten Bridge before construction started. Therefore, Rockingham County argued that it should be liable only for damages that Luten Bridge would have sustained if it had not began construction on the bridge.
- 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.