Logourl black

Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 363 (1966)


Facts

Dora Surowitz (plaintiff) was a Polish immigrant with limited English vocabulary and no education. In 1957, with the help of her son-in-law, Irving Brilliant (Brilliant), she purchased $2,000 worth of stock in Hilton Hotels Corp. (Hilton) (defendant). Brilliant was a professional investment advisor and also had a law degree from Harvard and a master’s degree in economics from Columbia. About five years after the purchase, Mrs. Surowitz received a notice from Hilton stating that it was planning to buy back a lot of its stock. Mrs. Surowitz went to Brilliant so he could explain the notice to her. Brilliant, after investigating the notice and Hilton, determined that Hilton was engaged in fraudulent practices. Brilliant explained this to Mrs. Surowitz, and Mrs. Surowitz agreed to file a derivative shareholders suit against Hilton in her name. Brilliant fully explain the complaint to Mrs. Surowitz, which she then verified pursuant to Rule 23(b) [now Rule 23.1] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court, before requiring Hilton to answer the complaint, allowed it to depose Mrs. Surowitz. At the deposition, it was apparent that Mrs. Surowitz did not understand the complaint or much of what the lawsuit was about. It was also apparent that in signing her verification, she had simply relied on what Brilliant had told her about the case. Based on this, Hilton filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the district court granted the motion. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court, determining that whether the allegations in the complaint were true or not was irrelevant because Mrs. Surowitz in her oral testimony did not seem to know anything about the lawsuit. Mrs. Surowitz appealed.

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 (Black, 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 (Harlan, 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.

Here's why 89,000 law students rely 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.
  • 12,195 briefs - keyed to 164 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.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now