Day v. Sidley & Austin: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
| court                 =  
|court=
| citation             =  
|citation=
| date                 = <!-- example: "April 3, 1974" -->
|date=April 3, 1974
| subject               = Business Associations
|subject=Business Associations
| appealed_from         =  
|appealed_from=
| decision_by          =  
|case_treatment=No
| joined_by            =  
|overturned=
| concurrence          =  
|partially_overturned=
| dissent              =  
|reaffirmed=
| concur_dissent        =  
|questioned=
| overturned            =  
|criticized=
| partially_overturned  =  
|distinguished=
| reaffirmed            =  
|cited=
| questioned            =  
|followed=
| criticized            =  
|related=
| distinguished        =  
|facts=P belonged to D law firm as a partner, but not a member of the decision-making executive committee. P was sole chairperson of D.C. office of firm. Law firm announced a potential merger, and told all partners they would be in better or as good condition after the merger as before. All partners voted to approve merger. After approval, P found that he would lose position of sole chairman, felt humiliated, and resigned.
| cited                =  
|procedural_history=
| followed              =  
|issues=Did the law firm breach/owe a duty to P?
| related              =  
|arguments=
|holding=There was no breach of duty nor contract by D.
|judgment=
|reasons=
|rule=
|comments=
|case_text_links=
|Court_opinion_parts=
}}
}}
'''Facts''': P belonged to D law firm as a partner, but not a member of the decision-making executive committee. P was sole chairperson of D.C. office of firm. Law firm announced a potential merger, and told all partners they would be in better or as good condition after the merger as before. All partners voted to approve merger. After approval, P found that he would lose position of sole chairman, felt humiliated, and resigned.
'''Holding''': There was no breach of duty nor contract by D.

Revision as of 01:00, September 17, 2020

Day v. Sidley & Austin
Court
Citation
Date decided April 3, 1974

Facts

P belonged to D law firm as a partner, but not a member of the decision-making executive committee. P was sole chairperson of D.C. office of firm. Law firm announced a potential merger, and told all partners they would be in better or as good condition after the merger as before. All partners voted to approve merger. After approval, P found that he would lose position of sole chairman, felt humiliated, and resigned.

Issues

Did the law firm breach/owe a duty to P?

Holding

There was no breach of duty nor contract by D.