Civil Procedure Keyed to Cound
Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘n’ Dive Corp
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:
Kimberly Village Homeowner Association ordered an Aquaslide product from Bolt, who forwarded the order to Sentry Pool and Chemical Supply Co., who forwarded the order to Purity Swimming Pool Supply. A slide was delivered from Purity to Kimberly, and was installed by Kimberly employees. An accident happened when Beeck, the plaintiff, was using the slide in question and suffered severe injuries. Plaintiff was at a social gathering sponsored by Harker, his employer. Kimberly’s insurer notified Aquaslide ‘n’ Dive Corp., Defendant, that the slide was involved with the accident. Defendant’s insurer investigated the incident and determined that the slide was manufactured by Defendant. In addition, Harker and Kimberly’s insurers also determined the slide was manufactured by Defendant. Subsequently, Beeck and his wife, Plaintiffs, sued Defendant for personal injuries suffered in the slide accident. Based on the insurers’ determinations that Defendant manufactured the slide, Defendant admitted it manufactured the slide in its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Six and a half months after the statute of limitations ran on Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant’s president determined that the slide was not manufactured by Defendant. Defendant sought leave to amend its answer and deny manufacturing the slide. The District Court granted such leave and Plaintiffs’ 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.