Confirm favorite deletion?
Corporations Keyed to O’Kelley
Vigneau v. Storch Engineers
Citation:1995 WL 767984 (1995)
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:
Defendant Storch Engineers is a consulting engineering firm, operating as a partnership. Plaintiff was hired by defendant as an architect for its Hartford office in 1980 and became a partner in 1983. Plaintiff funded additional partnership points by executing promissory notes in favor of Herbert Storch, the managing partner. In 1983, Joseph Merluzzo, head of defendants’ Connecticut operations, recruited plaintiff to invest with him in a real estate development partnership known of Highview Condominium Associates (HCA) to build condominiums. Merluzzo became the manager partner of HCA and plaintiff a general partner with a 22% interest. The arrangement was kept secret from Storch. HCA hired Storch to do the architectural work. In 1984 Merluzzo initiated another real estate partnership, called Grandford Associates. Merluzzo and plaintiff negotiated secretly with themselves to establish the fees Storch was to charge Grandford for Storch’s services. Grandford, however, suffered reverses and was unable to pay Storch’s bills. Merluzzo resigned from Storch in July 1986 when his participation in Grandford was discovered by Storch. Plaintiff promised Storch to divest himself of his entire interest in Grandford, but could find no takers. Plaintiff sues to recover the value of his partnership interest.
- 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.