Connection lost
Server error
BIAS v. ADVANTAGE INTERN., INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An agent, sued for failing to procure life insurance for a client who died of a drug overdose, won summary judgment. The court found the plaintiff’s general denials were insufficient to rebut specific evidence that the client was an uninsurable drug user.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the non-moving party’s burden on summary judgment, establishing that to create a genuine issue for trial, a party must counter specific evidence with specific facts, not with general denials, speculation, or mere “metaphysical doubt” about the movant’s evidence.
BIAS v. ADVANTAGE INTERN., INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The estate of deceased basketball star Leonard Bias sued his sports agency, Advantage International, Inc., and his agent, A. Lee Fentress. The estate alleged that the defendants negligently failed to procure a $1 million life insurance policy for Bias as instructed before his death from cocaine intoxication. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that their alleged failure caused no damage because Bias was uninsurable. To support their motion, the defendants presented specific, sworn testimony from two of Bias’s teammates who stated they had personally witnessed Bias use cocaine on multiple occasions. They also provided expert affidavits from insurance professionals who concluded that in 1986, no insurer would have issued a multi-million dollar (“jumbo”) life insurance policy to a known cocaine user. In response, the estate offered affidavits from Bias’s parents and coach stating they never knew him to be a drug user, along with evidence of several negative drug tests. The estate did not depose the teammates or otherwise directly impeach their testimony.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must a non-moving party present specific, contradictory facts to rebut the moving party’s evidence in order to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants because the estate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Must a non-moving party present specific, contradictory facts to rebut the moving party’s evidence in order to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent illustrating the evidentiary burden on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliq
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, once a party moving for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, su
Legal Analysis
The court applied the summary judgment standard articulated in *Celotex Corp. v. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui o
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A non-moving party cannot defeat summary judgment with general denials or