Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Freer
Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins
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:
In April 1992, Burt Sempier (Plaintiff), brought suit against his employer Johnson & Higgins (Defendant) pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). During discovery, Plaintiff served two sets of interrogatories on Defendant, in addition to several document requests. Defendant failed to respond to a number of the discovery demands. Plaintiff sought an order from the magistrate judge compelling Defendant’s response. The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion and Plaintiff appealed to the district court. The district court vacated the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion and remanded the matter. On remand, the magistrate judge excused Defendant from answering the first two sets of interrogatories and required Plaintiff to serve a third set of interrogatories. Defendant failed to respond to most of Plaintiff’s third set of interrogatories. Plaintiff sought an order to compel, which the magistrate judge denied. Instead, the court prepared its own bill of particulars and required Defendant to respond to it. On appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order regarding the bill of particulars. Defendant submitted responses to the bill of particulars, which Plaintiff believed were inadequate. Plaintiff thus filed another motion to compel. Defendant moved the district court for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADEA claim and prevailed. Plaintiff appealed both the grant of summary judgment and the substitution of Plaintiff’s interrogatories for the court’s bill of particulars.
- 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.