Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Karpinski v. Collins

Court of Appeal of California, First District
252 Cal. App. 2d 711 (1967)


Facts

John Karpinski (plaintiff) was a small dairyman in the Santa Clara Valley. In April 1962, Karpinski received a call from Gene Collins (defendant), the president of the Santa Clara Creamery (Creamery) (defendant). Collins offered to purchase milk from Karpinski at a Grade A contract rate if Karpinski agreed to pay a secret rebate of 4.5 cents per gallon. Such rebates were prohibited by the Milk Stabilization Act. At the time, Karpinski had only been able to secure dairy contracts at the Grade B rate, which was 60 percent of the Grade A rate. The Grade B rate was considered insufficient to support a dairyman’s business. Karpinski accepted the offer, because he had no other Grade A options. On April 1, 1962, Karpinski entered a contract to sell the Creamery 51,600 pounds of Grade A milk per month at the Grade A rate. During the life of the contract, Collins billed Karpinski a monthly feeding charge that was equal to 4.5 cents per gallon of milk received. Karpinski paid the feeding charge but never received any feeding services. Karpinski later loaned Collins $6,500.00 in exchange for reducing the rebate to 3 cents per gallon. By October 1963, Karpinski was unable to continue paying the rebate. Collins terminated the contract. Karpinski sued Collins, Ruth Collins (defendant), and the Creamery to recover the $6,500.00 loan and $4,177.72 in rebates. The trial court ruled in Karpinski’s favor and granted him the requested total of $10,677.72. The defendants appealed on the grounds that the trial court erred in finding that Karpinski was not in pari delicto with the defendants.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Shoemaker, 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, please start your free trial or log in.

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 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.