Connection lost
Server error
Isley v. Motown Record Corp. 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: A court set aside a jury verdict for the Isley Brothers against Motown Records. The verdict was based solely on the Isleys’ testimony, which contradicted their own prior sworn statements and which they admitted at trial was false.
Legal Significance: A trial judge has the authority under FRCP 59 to grant a new trial when a jury verdict is based on testimony the judge deems false, even if that testimony is technically sufficient to support the verdict, to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Isley v. Motown Record Corp. 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 Isley Brothers (plaintiffs) and Motown Record Corp. (defendant) disputed ownership of the hit song “It’s Your Thing.” Ownership depended on whether the song was first recorded in November 1968, while the Isleys were under contract to Motown, or in January 1969, after their contract was terminated. At trial, the jury’s verdict in favor of the Isleys rested exclusively on their testimony that the song was first recorded in January 1969. This testimony directly contradicted their sworn deposition testimony from 1969-70, in which they had acknowledged a significant recording session of their own music in November 1968. During the trial, the Isleys admitted their prior sworn testimony was a “lie” and “false,” claiming the November session was merely a sham to obtain money from Motown. Motown presented documentary evidence and testimony from a musician indicating the song was recorded at the November session. Following the jury verdict for the plaintiffs, the defendant moved to set it aside and for a new trial pursuant to FRCP 59.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a trial court grant a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 when a jury’s verdict is based exclusively on a party’s testimony that repudiates their own prior sworn statements?
Yes. The jury verdict is set aside and a new trial is 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 reprehen
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
May a trial court grant a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 when a jury’s verdict is based exclusively on a party’s testimony that repudiates their own prior sworn statements?
Conclusion
This case provides a classic illustration of a trial court's power 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
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a trial judge has the 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 cillu
Legal Analysis
The court exercised its authority under FRCP 59 to grant a new 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 iru
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court may set aside a jury verdict and order a