Civil Procedure Keyed to Hazard
Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
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:
Cedric Davis and Rufus Johnson (Plaintiffs) were police officers employed by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Defendant). During their tenure at Defendant, Plaintiffs alleged that they were the subjects of racial discrimination in promotion. They also claimed that they were investigated by Defendant in retaliation for making their complaints public. On November 16, 2001, Plaintiffs sued DEfendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Davis I). The suit was based on conduct occurring between November 1998 and February 2001. Davis I was dismissed with prejudice in February 2002. In June 2002, Plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit (Davis II), alleging racial discrimination in the lieutenant promotion process as well as retaliation for bringing Davis I. Davis II alleged acts that occurred between December 2001 and April 2002. Davis II’s claims were not made part of Davis I because Plaintiffs were still awaiting a “right to sue letter” from the EEOC when they filed Davis I. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs, arguing that any claims other than discrimination in the lieutenant promotion process were barred by res judicata. The district court agreed and dismissed those claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
- 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.