Civil Procedure Keyed to Cross
Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co.
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:
Plaintiff, a New York corporation, Asea, Inc. sold electrical transformer to the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power. The transformer was shipped on a ship from the Swedish manufacturer Asea A/B to Los Angeles. After shipment, Southern Pacific Transportation Co. and Harbor Belt Line, Defendants, took custody of the transformer and sent it by railroad to North Hollywood, California. Throughout the shipments, the transformer was damaged. Plaintiff brought suit against the railroads in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction for negligence, breach of warranty, and California statute violations. In this case, the discovery process lasted over a year. Plaintiff served admission request on the railroads, referring to when and how the transformer was damaged. The railroad responded to eighteen requests, indicating that after reasonable review, the railroads could not admit or deny the claims by stating “(n)ot applicable.” Subsequently, Plaintiff concluded that the railroads knew how the transformer was damages. Thus, the railroads should have admitted or denied the statements. Plaintiff motioned to have the court deem the requests admitted. The railroads gave unpersuasive responses at the hearing, and the district court granted Plaintiff’s motion.
- 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.