Connection lost
Server error
SINNAR v. LeROY 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: Plaintiff paid defendant $450 to procure a beer license. When the license was not obtained, plaintiff sued for his money back. The court refused to enforce the agreement, deeming it an illegal contract to improperly influence a government agency, and left the parties as it found them.
Legal Significance: Establishes that courts will not enforce contracts contrary to public policy, particularly those involving potential corruption of government processes. When parties are in pari delicto (equally at fault), the court will leave them where it finds them, denying recovery to either party.
SINNAR v. LeROY 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 plaintiff, Sinnar, previously had his application for a beer license denied by the Washington state liquor control board. Subsequently, the defendant, LeRoy, a friend and customer, suggested he could obtain the license for Sinnar. Sinnar paid LeRoy $450 based on LeRoy’s promise to either secure the license or return the money. Both parties understood that LeRoy would use the funds to pay an unidentified third party, a “Mr. Lewis,” to facilitate the process. Sinnar never received the license and sued LeRoy to recover the $450. At trial, LeRoy raised the defense that the contract was illegal, despite not having pleaded it as an affirmative defense. The trial court entered a judgment for Sinnar, from which LeRoy appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Should a court enforce an agreement and compel the return of money paid under a contract whose objective is to procure a government license through means that suggest improper influence and thus violate public policy?
No. The judgment for the plaintiff is reversed and the action dismissed. 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 comm
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
Should a court enforce an agreement and compel the return of money paid under a contract whose objective is to procure a government license through means that suggest improper influence and thus violate public policy?
Conclusion
This case is a classic illustration of the public policy defense in 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
Legal Rule
A court will not enforce a contract that is illegal or contrary 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 f
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed the procedural question of whether the defense of 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract to procure a government license through improper influence is