Confirm favorite deletion?
Secured Transactions Keyed to Lopucki
Uni Imports, Inc. v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago
Citation:978 F.2d 984 (7th Cir. 1991)
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:
On August 12, 1987, Exchange National Bank and Aparacor, Inc. executed a security agreement, which granted Exchange a security interest in Aparacor’s assets at Exchange. The two executed a note due, which incorporated the security agreement and established a revolving line of credit of up to $7.2 million for Aparacor. After the note expired, Exchange continued to make advances of funds. On November, 1988, UNI obtained a $66,000 judgment against Aparacor. UNI registered the judgment. On January 12, 1989, UNI tried to enforce the judgment against Aparacor’s assets at Exchange by delivering a writ of execution. The marshals service served the write on Exchange, but Exchange refused to turn over any of Aparacor’s assets, contending that it had priority status. Exchange continued to advance money to Aparacor.
- 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.