Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Epstein
Turner Const. Co. v. US Framing Inc.
Citation:49 Misc.3d 1213(A), 28 N.Y.S.3d 651, 2015 WL 6991217 (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 2013, Turner entered into a contract with non-party Shelter Cove LLC to provide general construction services with respect to a 104-unit apartment complex. At a subsequent meeting, a written agreement naming Turner as contractor and Framing as framing subcontractor was executed. In April 2013, there was ongoing discussions between Framing and Turner concerning certain pricing issues. Turner claims that it was growing concerned by delays in Framing’s hardware submittals and by the failure of Framing to return calls and emails. Framing denies any failure to perform under the contract and claims that it was growing concerned about Turner’s delays in approving change orders and fixing a firm start date. On June 6, 2013, Framing advised Turner in writing that it considered the June 3, 2013 email to represent a wrongful termination of the contract. Turner brought an action on July 1, 2013 seeking damages for Framing’s alleged unjustified repudiation of the Subcontract and for its failure or refusal to perform.
- 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.