Civil Procedure Keyed to Cound
Hicks v. United States
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Greitens, the decedent, went to an infirmary located on a naval base after she had been vomiting for an hour. The doctor that examined her, felt her abdomen and looked at her medical records. He noted that she had gastroenteritis, told Greitens she had a “bug” and told her to go home and come back in 8 hours. The next morning, Greitens drank a glass of water and then passed out. She died later on at the hospital due to an obstruction that ruptured her intestine. Plaintiff, the administrator of Greitens’ estate, sued the Government based on the alleged negligence of the doctor. Under Virginia law, the standard applicable to this case, if a doctor used ordinary care in reaching the diagnosis, then the doctor was not negligent even if it is later found that the diagnosis was a mistake. The Plaintiff’s experts testified that the standard practice in this situation is to conduct more than a mere cursory examination. An obstruction can be fatal and tests are usually done in order to rule out this possibility. The doctor that treated Greitens admitted that the accepted standard was to conduct a rectal exam and ask about diarrhea, both of which the doctor had not done. The District Court found that the doctor had rendered diagnosis with ordinary care and dismissed Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.