Category: Case Briefs

IRAC Summary: Issue: The primary issue in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant meets the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rule: The relevant legal rule is derived from the “minimum contacts” standard established in International Shoe Co. v.…

Case Summary (IRAC Format): Issue: The primary legal issue in Pennoyer v. Neff is whether the state court of Oregon had jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against a non-resident who was not personally served with process within the state and did not voluntarily appear in the proceedings. Rule: For a court to render a…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern): Issue: Whether the state of Washington had jurisdiction to impose a tax on International Shoe Co. for the benefit of its unemployed workers, given that the company had no physical presence in the state, only sales representatives. Rule: Due process requires that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The main issue in Vosburg v. Putney is whether a defendant can be held liable for battery when an unintentional and seemingly harmless act results in significant injury to another due to an unknown preexisting condition. Rule: The rule of law in this case is that an individual may be held liable…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The primary legal issue in Summers v. Tice is whether, in a situation where two defendants negligently cause an injury but there is uncertainty as to which defendant’s act was the direct cause, both defendants can be held jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Rule: The court applied…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: The primary legal question is whether Coca Cola Bottling Co. is liable for the injuries suffered by Gladys Escola when a bottle of Coca-Cola exploded in her hand. Rule: In cases of products liability for negligence, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to individuals who may foreseeably come into…

IRAC Summary of Garratt v. Dailey Issue: The key legal issue in Garratt v. Dailey is whether Brian Dailey, a five-year-old boy, committed the tort of battery when he pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt causing her to fall and suffer injuries. Specifically, the case addresses whether Dailey had the requisite intent for…

Brief Summary of the Case (IRAC) Issue: The primary issue in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to third parties who are not in privity of contract (i.e., have no direct contractual relationship) with the manufacturer when the product in question is inherently dangerous and could cause…

IRAC Summary of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. Issue: The primary issue in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. is whether a manufacturer can be held strictly liable in tort when a consumer is injured by a defective product, even in the absence of a contract between the injured party and the manufacturer. Rule:…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The issue in Rylands v. Fletcher revolves around whether a person who brings onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes is liable for any resultant damage, even if the person has not been negligent. Rule: The House of Lords developed a new rule of strict liability for what…

IRAC Summary: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) Issue: The primary issue is whether mental health professionals have a duty to warn an identifiable third party or parties when their patient poses a serious risk of violence. Rule: The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who…

Case Brief Summary: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Issue: The primary issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson is whether the defendant, Stevenson, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Donoghue, who was not his direct customer but consumed his product, leading to harm from a contaminated drink. Rule: The legal rule established by this case is…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The primary legal issue in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is whether the defendant, Long Island Railroad Co., owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, that was breached, resulting in her injury. Rule: The rule of law is that a defendant owes a duty of care only to…

IRAC Summary: Issue: Whether the cost of performance or the diminution in property value is the appropriate measure of damages when a party breaches a contract to perform restorative work upon land. Rule: Generally, the measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount which will compensate the aggrieved party for all the detriment…

v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) Summary of the Case (IRAC): Issue: The main issue in ProCD v. Zeidenberg is whether a contract for software, which includes terms that become available only after purchase, specifically a shrinkwrap license agreement, is enforceable against the purchaser who later violates the terms of that agreement. Rule:…

IRAC Summary Issue: The issue in Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. revolves around the definition of the word “chicken” in a contract. Specifically, the question is whether “chicken” referred only to young chickens suitable for broiling and frying or if it also included older, stewing chickens. Rule: The main rule in this…

Case Name: Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917) —Brief Summary— Issue: Whether an agreement between Wood and Lucy contained an enforceable contract despite the absence of an express promise by Wood to use reasonable efforts to market Lucy’s fashion designs. Rule: An implied promise or obligation can be read…

IRAC Summary: Issue: The central issue in Sherwood v. Walker is whether a mutual mistake of fact as to a fundamental aspect of an agreement is grounds for rescission of a contract. Rule: A contract may be rescinded if both parties are under a mutual mistake of material fact which significantly affects the agreed performance.…

IRAC Summary of Hawkins v. McGee Issue: The issue in Hawkins v. McGee is whether the defendant, a surgeon, breached his contract with the plaintiff by guaranteeing a certain result from a skin graft operation and not achieving the promised outcome. Rule: In contract law, when one party promises a specific outcome to another party,…

Brief Summary (IRAC Pattern) Issue: Whether a promise to refrain from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the age of 21, constitutes sufficient consideration for a valid contract when such a promise is made in exchange for a later financial reward. Rule: A contract must have consideration, which is…