Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Handicapped Children’s Education Board v. Lukaszewski

Wisconsin Supreme Court
332 N.W.2d 774 (1983)


Facts

Lukaszewski (defendant) entered into a contract with Handicapped Children’s Education Board (the Board) (plaintiff) to work as a therapist for the 1978-1979 school year. Before the school year began, Lukaszewski was offered a position by a day care center near her home. The day care center offered a higher salary than the Board. Lukaszewski attempted to resign her position with the Board, but the Board refused to release her from her contract. Lukaszewski began working under the contract, but became upset with her situation. She visited her doctor, who told her that she was suffering from high blood pressure due to her situation. In September of 1978, Lukaszewski submitted a letter of resignation to the school, citing her health as her reason for resigning. Lukaszewski subsequently took a position with the day care center. The Board sought a replacement for Lukaszewski. Only one person applied and she was hired. Because she was more qualified than Lukaszewski, the Board was required to pay a salary that was over $1,000 more annually that what it would have paid Lukaszewski. The Board filed suit for breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of the Board and awarded the Board the additional annual cost of the replacement therapist. Lukaszewski appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Lukaszewski breached her contract, but that the Board was not entitled to damages because, though it had to pay a higher salary, it was receiving a more valuable therapist. The Board appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Callow, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Day, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.