Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Loew's, Inc. v. Cole Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit1950Docket #499979
185 F.2d 641 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4320

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

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: An employer suspended a screenwriter for his conduct before a congressional committee, alleging breach of a contractual “morals clause.” The appellate court reversed a judgment for the employee, finding errors in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings, and remanded for a new trial.

Legal Significance: This case explores the enforceability of “morals clauses” in employment contracts and the doctrines of waiver and election when an employer continues employment after a potential breach. It highlights the factual inquiries necessary to determine breach and waiver.

Loew's, Inc. v. Cole 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

Lester Cole, a screenwriter for Loew’s, Inc., was employed under a contract containing a “morals clause” (Paragraph 5) requiring him to conduct himself with due regard to public conventions and morals and not to commit acts that would bring him into public hatred, contempt, or prejudice the producer or industry. In October 1947, Cole appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and was perceived as refusing to answer whether he was a member of the Communist Party. He was subsequently cited for contempt of Congress. On December 2, 1947, Loew’s suspended Cole, asserting his conduct violated Paragraph 5. Cole sued for declaratory relief. A jury returned a special verdict finding Cole did not breach the contract and that Loew’s waived its right to suspend him. The trial court entered judgment for Cole. Loew’s appealed, arguing Cole’s conduct did breach the contract and that various trial errors occurred, including improper jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. Cole contended he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, arguing his conduct was not a breach and that Loew’s conduct, both before and after his HUAC testimony, constituted waiver or a practical construction of the contract in his favor.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the trial court err in determining that the employee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, were there prejudicial errors in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings concerning the alleged breach of the employment contract’s morals clause and the employer’s potential waiver of such breach?

Reversed and remanded. The court held that Cole was not entitled to 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,

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Did the trial court err in determining that the employee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, were there prejudicial errors in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings concerning the alleged breach of the employment contract’s morals clause and the employer’s potential waiver of such breach?

Conclusion

The case underscores that breach of a morals clause and waiver are 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

Legal Rule

An employee's conduct may breach a contractual "morals clause" if it tends 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 adipiscin

Legal Analysis

The court determined that Cole was not entitled to judgment as a 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 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 offici

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A screenwriter (Cole) was suspended by his studio (Loew’s) for refusing
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 sin

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+