Connection lost
Server error
Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of United States Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
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: Claimant provided information leading to an arrest without knowing a reward was offered. The court held she could not collect the reward, as knowledge of a private offer is essential for acceptance and contract formation.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that for private reward offers, knowledge of the offer at the time of performance is a prerequisite for acceptance, underscoring the mutual assent requirement in contract law.
Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of United States 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 Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Post No. 58 (Defendant), offered a $500 reward for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of the murderer of Maurice L. Bernstein. Notice of this reward was published in newspapers on June 7, 1946. On June 11, police questioned Mary Glover (Plaintiff/Claimant) regarding the whereabouts of Reginald Wheeler, a suspect and her daughter’s boyfriend. Glover, unaware of the reward offer, provided information that her daughter and Wheeler had left the city and gave names of relatives Wheeler might be visiting, including one in Ridge Spring, South Carolina. Based on this information, police located and arrested Wheeler on June 13. Glover testified she first learned of the reward on June 12, the day after she had given the information to the police. Her husband corroborated this. The trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and Glover appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a person who provides information leading to an arrest entitled to collect a reward offered by a private organization if they were unaware of the offer at the time the information was given?
No, the claimant is not entitled to the reward. The appellate court 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 c
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
Is a person who provides information leading to an arrest entitled to collect a reward offered by a private organization if they were unaware of the offer at the time the information was given?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the common law principle that knowledge of a private 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 exercita
Legal Rule
For private reward offers, there can be no contract unless the claimant, 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
Legal Analysis
The court determined that questions regarding rewards offered by private individuals and 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To collect a reward, a claimant must have known of the