## Facts

- A federal appellate decision is identified by the citation 918 F.2d 689 (1990) involving Autotrol Corporation and Continental Water Systems Corporation.
- The available material does not provide the opinion’s factual findings, the parties’ underlying relationship (e.g., contract, licensing, competition), or the events that led to the dispute.
- The available material does not identify the forum (which circuit), the date of decision, or the district court proceedings beyond the general premise that an appeal occurred.
- The available material emphasizes that authoritative case facts, procedural posture, legal issues, and holdings require access to the opinion text in a reporter or database.
- The available material provides a method for locating the decision in commercial databases (Westlaw, Lexis+, Bloomberg Law) and free sources (Google Scholar, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, FindLaw).
- The available material provides a generic framework for extracting material facts from an opinion once obtained, focusing on: the parties’ relationship, key transactions/terms, alleged breaches or wrongs, claims/counterclaims, and procedural steps.

## Issues

1. What are the material facts, claims, defenses, and procedural posture actually resolved in Autotrol Corp. v. Continental Water Systems Corp., as stated by the court in the reported decision?
2. What legal questions did the appellate court decide (as framed in the opinion), and what standard of review governed those questions?
3. What was the appellate disposition (affirmance, reversal, remand, or mixed), and what directions, if any, were given for further proceedings?

## Decision

- No reliable case-specific decision, holding, or disposition can be stated from the available material because it does not include the court’s opinion or an authoritative summary of the judgment.
- The only supported conclusion is methodological: an accurate brief requires reviewing the opinion text associated with the reported citation and extracting the court’s stated holdings and reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- A case brief should separate (a) material facts, (b) procedural posture, (c) issues, (d) holdings, (e) reasoning, and (f) disposition, and should track the court’s own framing where possible.
- Appellate outcomes and doctrinal rules should not be asserted without verifying the opinion text in an authoritative source, particularly when quotations or detailed reasoning are requested.
- Research for a reported federal appellate decision may be conducted by citation search in paid databases (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis+, Bloomberg Law) or by parallel citation/name searches in free repositories (e.g., Google Scholar, CourtListener).
- A neutral summary should focus on what the court decided and why, including the controlling test, the standard of review, and the application of law to the facts, while avoiding unsupported inferences.

## Conclusion

Because the available material does not include the opinion or any authoritative account of the court’s factual findings, issues decided, reasoning, or disposition, a case-specific summary of Autotrol Corp. v. Continental Water Systems Corp., 918 F.2d 689 (1990) cannot be reliably produced; only a structured briefing method and research path to obtain the decision text can be stated.


Autotrol Corp. v. Continental Water Sys. Corp., 918 F.2d 689 (1990)