Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Friedenthal
Lavender v. Kurn
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:
Lavender, Petitioner and the administrator of the estate of L.E. Haney, a former railroad employee, sued Respondent Kurn, trustees of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (Frisco), and Respondent Illinois Central Railroad Company (Illinois Central), the former employer of Haney under FELA. The evidence presented in the case below showed that Haney, a former switchman for Illinois Central had been working on a dark night in Memphis. Haney was in charge of clearing the switch for Frisco’s train that was backing into the Memphis station. Haney switched the tracks for the train to back up, which it did. Haney was supposed to switch the light from red to green once the train cleared the switch; when the light did not turn green railroad employees went back to where Haney was and found him dead. He suffered from an injury to the back of the head. The evidence presented showed that Haney had fallen forward. The actual cause of his death was disputed. Petitioner argued that he was hit by a mail hook protruding from one of the cars on the backing train that could pivot out of the side of the train as much as 12-14 inches. There were mounds of dirt and cinder of varying heights along the tracks. Petitioner’s theory was that while Haney was standing on the mound and the overhanging section of the car passed by, the mail hook was sticking out and hit Haney inside the back of the head. Respondents’ theory was that Haney was murdered by an unknown assailant. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that it would be too speculative and conjectural to infer that the mail hook extended 12-14 inches out of the train. In addition, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that there was not enough evidence presented by Petitioner to show that insufficient light and uneven ground could have contributed to Haney’s death. Finally, a foreman’s testimony that he heard an unidentified switchman relay that the switchman was told that Haney died from something sticking out of the train was inadmissible hearsay. Based on these grounds, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the verdict for Petition. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
- 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.