Write a short synopsis of the case using the brief outline below no longer than two pages.

Write a short synopsis of the case using the brief outline below no longer than two pages. The synopsis should be typed double-spaced times new roman 12 font and printed in black ink.

 

Case Briefing Instructions:
For every Case Brief:

You must find a case related to the weekly chapter.  You can pull your case from the book or from the internet as long as you cite the sources.

Write a short synopsis of the case using the brief outline below no longer than two pages. The synopsis should be typed double-spaced times new roman 12 font and printed in black ink.

Case brief written assignment expectations:

Facts: This should be a quick list of facts but make sure to include any legally significant facts.

Procedural history: These are notes about the journey the case has taken through the court system.
Issue presented: What is the legal issue that the court is discussing? Note there can be more than one issue.

Holding: This is the ruling of the court. If the issue presented is a question for the court to answer then the holding is the answer to that question.

Legal reasoning: This is a quick summary of the thought process used by the court to reach their conclusion.
Rule of law: If the court applied any rules of law that are important you want to write that down too.
Concurring or dissenting opinions (if any): If your casebook included a concurring or dissenting opinion in your reading you will need to read it carefully. It is there for a reason.
Citation: Required.

Cases for synopses. ( you may pick anyone of these cases)
Truck Ins. Exchange v. Industrial Indem. Co. 688 P.2d 1243 (Mont. 1984)

A father and son each owned land and raised seed potatoes. They each used their own equipment. Each raised about the same amount of potatoes and they were stored together and advertised for sale by Wilbur Kimm and Son. A loss arose.

Issue: Are the father and son partners such that they must share this loss?

Held: Yes. They were partners and must share the loss. Although the intent of the parties is a major factor if facts bring arrangement within the definition of a partnership the parties cannot escape liability incident to that relationship merely by saying that no such relationship exists. If the intended action of the parties creates a partnership in fact what the parties call their arrangement or intend their arrangement to be is irrelevant. The fact that the father and son split profits in a joint account that contained proceeds from their sale of seed potatoes was prima facie evidence that a partnership existed between father and son.

  1. Volkman v. DP Associates 268 S.E.2d 265 (N.C. 1980)

Volkman contacted David McNamee about obtaining advice on a residential construction project. McNamee informed Volkman that he (McNamee) was going into business with Phillip Carroll. Later Volkman was introduced to Carroll who responded “I am happy we will be working with you.” Volkman signed a contract with DP Associates and he assumed the organization’s name was taken from the first letter of David McNamee’s and Phillip Carroll’s names. In fact there had been no actual agreement between McNamee and Carroll to go into business together. A dispute arose and Volkman sued DP Associates as a partnership. Carroll sought to be dismissed from this lawsuit since he was not in business with McNamee.
Issue: Should Carroll be estopped from denying his liability as a partner?

Held: Yes. Carroll is liable as a partner by estoppel. One who represents by words or conduct that he is a partner when he is not or one who consents to such a representation by another is estopped or prevented from denying such an association; that person is liable as a partner to those who relied on such representations.

  1. Martinez v. Koelling 421 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1988)

Orel Koelling was a partner in a partnership that employed Martin Martinez. Mr. Martinez died as the result of an accident that occurred in the course of the partnership’s business. Mrs. Martinez filed suit against Koelling to recover for her husband’s death. Koelling moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the partnership was the employer and liable if anyone was.

Issue: Should Koelling be dismissed from this litigation?

Held: No. Partners are jointly and severally liable for the actions of the partnership. Thus Koelling as a partner was a proper defendant.

  1. Martin v. Barbour 558 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. 1977)

A jury returned a $125000 verdict for the plaintiff against Drs. Barbour and Egle. The case was based on negligence by Barbour in performing an operation. The defendant Egle did not assist or participate in the surgery and did not treat the plaintiff. However Egle was a partner in the practice of medicine with Barbour at the time of the surgery.

Issue: Can one partner (Egle) be liable for another partner’s (Barbour’s) negligence?

Held: Yes. Egle is liable. Pursuant to general rules partners in the practice of medicine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *