Logourl black
From our private database of 12,700+ case briefs...

Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co.

United States Supreme Court
416 U.S. 600 (1974)


Facts

W.T. Grant Co. (Grant) (plaintiff) sold various appliances to Mitchell (defendant) on credit. Mitchell did not pay the full balance and Grant filed suit to recover. Under Louisiana law, Grant’s lien on the appliances would expire if Mitchell transferred possession of the appliances. A Louisiana statute called for sequestration of such property if the creditor claimed that the debtor could “conceal, dispose of, or waste the property or the revenues therefrom, or remove the property from the parish, during the pendency of the action.” The law provided that the sheriff would hold the property during the court proceedings. Grant’s credit manager signed an affidavit stating that Grant had reason to believe that Mitchell would somehow dispose of the appliances during the proceeding. The trial judge then ordered sequestration of the appliances, directing the sheriff to take possession without a hearing or notice to Mitchell. Mitchell appealed based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972), which called for a hearing prior to sequestration.

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 (White, 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.

Concurrence (Powell, J.)

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

Dissent (Stewart, 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.

Dissent (Brennan, 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 120,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 12,700 briefs, keyed to 172 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.