Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Cound
Provident Tradesmen Bank v. Patterson
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:
Dutcher let Cionci borrow his car. Cionci, Harris and Lynch were in Dutcher’s car when it collided with a truck driven by Smith. Cionci, Lynch and Smith were killed and Harris was badly injured. All individuals as Plaintiffs or Plaintiff’s decedents (Lynch, Harris, Smith) as well as Dutcher were residents of Pennsylvania. Provident Tradesmen Bank, the administrator of Lynch’s estate and Plaintiff in the present action sued Cionci’s estate and settled for $50,000. The settlement was unsatisfied because Cionci’s estate did not have any money. Smith and Harris’ estates brought state court actions against Cionci’s estate and Lynch’s estate, which were still pending. Dutcher has an insurance policy with Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (“Lumbermens”) with a limit of $100,000. The insurance company refused to defend on the grounds that Cionci was not covered as an insured under the policy because he did not have permission from Dutcher to drive the car. Plaintiffs’ decedents sued Cionci’s estate and Lumbermens in federal court in Pennsylvania, based on diversity, seeking a declaration that Cionci was driving with permission and was thus covered under the insurance policy. The District Court found in favor of the two estates. Defendant appealed, arguing non-liability on Pennsylvania state law grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that Dutcher was an indispensable party and should have been joined. Because Dutcher’s joinder in the action would have destroyed diversity, the case should be dismissed. 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.