Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Friedenthal
Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster
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:
The plaintiffs alleged that security guards at a mall in West Mifflin “harassed, threatened, and assaulted” them. They requested help from the West Mifflin Police Department, but Officer Evan not only refused to rebuke the guards but also informed the plaintiffs that he would arrest them if they returned to the mall. Plaintiff Lindsey attempted for three weeks to learn why they had been thrown out of the mall. Finally, the plaintiffs returned to the mall, were accosted by security guards, and arrested by Officer Evan. The plaintiffs were convicted on charges stemming from the incident, but the convictions were overturned on appeal. They then filed this action, alleging, among other things, a federal civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. Section: 1983. The defendants had the case removed to federal court, but the Magistrate Judge recommended a remand of the entire case. District Judge Lancaster adopted the recommendation and remanded the entire case. The defendants then sought this w rit of mandamus to prevent remand.
- 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.