Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood case brief summary
369 U.S. 469 (1962)
CASE FACTS
This action arose out of a controversy that involved a written licensing contract in which petitioner had agreed to pay the respondents for the exclusive right to use a trademark.
The respondents filed a complaint seeking temporary and permanent injunctions in order to restrain petitioner from any future use of or dealing in the franchise as well as the trademark.
Respondents also sought an accounting in order to determine the exact amount of money being due from the petitioner and a judgment for that same amount.
The petitioner had indorsed a jury demand upon the answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 38(b).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure38(a) provides that the right of trial by jury as declared in the U.S. Constitutional Amendment VII or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(a) requiree that any legal issues for which a trial by jury is demanded properly and timely shall be submitted to a jury.
The Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to a trial by jury insofar as the complaint contained legal claims.
DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that respondents' claim for a money judgment was a legal claim, and that the petitioner was, as a result, entitled to a jury trial.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court reversed the order that denied the petition for mandamus.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
The court concluded that the legal claims involved, to which the petitioner was entitled to a trial by jury, must be determined prior to any final determination by the court of the respondents' equitable claims.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
369 U.S. 469 (1962)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The petitioner sought certiorari review of
a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals (Third Circuit), which upheld an order from a federal district judge that denied the
petitioner's demand for a jury trial as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 on the factual issues that were related to the question of
whether or not there has been a breach of contract.CASE FACTS
This action arose out of a controversy that involved a written licensing contract in which petitioner had agreed to pay the respondents for the exclusive right to use a trademark.
The respondents filed a complaint seeking temporary and permanent injunctions in order to restrain petitioner from any future use of or dealing in the franchise as well as the trademark.
Respondents also sought an accounting in order to determine the exact amount of money being due from the petitioner and a judgment for that same amount.
The petitioner had indorsed a jury demand upon the answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 38(b).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure38(a) provides that the right of trial by jury as declared in the U.S. Constitutional Amendment VII or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(a) requiree that any legal issues for which a trial by jury is demanded properly and timely shall be submitted to a jury.
The Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to a trial by jury insofar as the complaint contained legal claims.
DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that respondents' claim for a money judgment was a legal claim, and that the petitioner was, as a result, entitled to a jury trial.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court reversed the order that denied the petition for mandamus.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
The court concluded that the legal claims involved, to which the petitioner was entitled to a trial by jury, must be determined prior to any final determination by the court of the respondents' equitable claims.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment