Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Freer
J.A. Olson Co. v. City of Winona
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:
J.A. Olson Company (Plaintiff) alleged federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff sued the City of Winona (Defendant), which was incorporated in Mississippi. Plaintiff was incorporated in Illinois and had various operations in Mississippi. Plaintiff maintained its only manufacturing plant in Mississippi. Plaintiff also made significant managerial decisions in Mississippi, including: employment, production, and account management decisions. Plaintiff maintained bank accounts in Mississippi and was involved in various Mississippi organizations and associations. Plaintiff was not a member of similar organizations or associations in other states. While Plaintiff was headquartered in Illinois, the decisions made in Illinois were based on information derived from Mississippi. The district court held that Plaintiff’s primary place of business was in Mississippi and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
- 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.