Case%20Brief%20Template%2017
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of California, Berkeley *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
138
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by jasminejohnson373732
Sample Case Brief
SAMPLE CASE
The following is a sample case that is commonly used in Contracts Cases to illustrate the idea of a "legal duty." Each element is identified.
STEPHEN GRAY, RESPONDENT, v. THERESA D. MARTINO, APPELLANT
Supreme Court of New Jersey
91 N.J.L. 462; 103 A. 24
February 2, 1918, Decided
Parties:
These are the primary parties. Generally the case will be referred to only by the last names of the parties. E.g.
Gray v. Martino
.
MINTURN, J. The plaintiff occupied the position of a special police officer, in Atlantic City, and incidentally was identified with the work of the prosecutor of the pleas of the county. He possessed knowledge concerning the theft of certain diamonds and jewelry from the possession of the defendant, who had advertised a reward for the recovery of the property. In this situation he claims to Facts of the case:
What happened that brought these parties to court?
have entered into a verbal contract with defendant, whereby she agreed to pay him $500 if he could procure for her the names and addresses of the thieves. As a result of his meditation with the police authorities the diamonds and jewelry were recovered,
and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the promised
reward.
The District Court, sitting without a jury, awarded plaintiff a judgment for the amount of the reward, and hence this appeal.
Procedural History:
Who won in the court below?
Various points are discussed
in the briefs, but to us the dominant and conspicuous inquiry in the case is, was the plaintiff, during the period of this transaction, a public officer, charged with the enforcement of the law?
Legal Issue:
What fact or circumstance is at issue that
will be the deciding factor in
how the court rules on this case?
The testimony makes it manifest that he was a special police officer to some extent identified with the work of the prosecutor's
office, and that position, upon well-settled grounds of
public policy, required him to assist, at least, in the prosecution of offenders Reasoning/Analysis:
The court applies the facts to see whether they satisfy the
elements of the rule.
against the law.
The services he rendered, in
this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of that public duty, and for its performance he was not entitled to receive a special quid pro quo.
The cases on the subject are
collected in a footnote to
Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396
, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law."
This rule of public policy has
been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by
statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as
in the case of
United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381
, where the attorney-general, Rule of Law:
Under what rule of law does this issue fall?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
under an act for "the detection and prosecution of
crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy.
The judgment below for that
reason must be reversed.
Holding:
What is the conclusion of the court?