Bloomgarden v. Coyer

479 F.2d 201 (1973)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
B
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bloomgarden v. Coyer

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
479 F.2d 201 (1973)

SR
Play video

Facts

Henry Bloomgarden (plaintiff) was the president of Socio-Dynamics Industries, Inc. (SDI), a consulting and research firm. Coyer and Guy (defendants) were real estate developers seeking to develop a segment of the Georgetown waterfront in Washington, D.C. On January 26, 1970, Bloomgarden arranged for Coyer and Guy to meet one of Bloomgarden’s investors, David Carley, to discuss Coyer and Guy’s development plans. Bloomgarden arranged for the same group to meet with representatives of the Inland Steel Company on February 19, 1970, to discuss the same plan. At no point before either meeting did Bloomgarden indicate he expected a finder’s fee for these introductions. When asked what he hoped to obtain from the project after the second meeting, Bloomgarden only stated that he hoped SDI might gain work for the project. In April 1970, Coyer, Guy, and the Inland Steel Company reached an agreement regarding the development plan. In March 1970, Bloomgarden sought a finder’s fee on behalf of SDI. Upon realizing he could not bring suit on behalf of SDI, Bloomgarden sought a finder’s fee for himself in May 1970. Coyer and Guy refused, and Bloomgarden brought suit against them to recover a finder’s fee. The District Court granted Coyer and Guy summary judgment on grounds that Bloomgarden did not expect to be compensated for his services at the time that he rendered them.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 804,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Contracts

Key Terms