SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Whaley
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
Citation:
United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1929. 35 F.2d 301.
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:
Luten Bridge Company (Plaintiff) was hired by Rockingham County (Defendant) to build a bridge. Defendant executed the contract, but before the project began, informed plaintiff that it would not honor the contract. At the time the contract was formed, three of the county’s commissioners voted to go forward with the bridge project, and two opposed. After the contract was formed, one of the commissioners voting in favor of the bridge project resigned, and was replaced by a new commissioner who opposed the bridge project. Defendant informed plaintiff that it would not honor the contract. At this time, plaintiff had completed very little work on the project and spent about $1,900 on labor and material for it. Notwithstanding the defendant’s cancellation, plaintiff continued with the construction work and finished 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.
5m 51s
