Civil Procedure Keyed to Hazard
Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
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:
Joyce Jones along with several other individuals (Plaintiffs), were customers of Ford dealerships all over the country. As part of the process of purchasing a car, they applied for credit from the Ford Motor Credit Company (Defendant). Jones was given an interest rate higher than that of the rate schedule created by Defendant. This difference is due to the discretion of the individual dealer. Jones, an African-American, alleges that this difference was due to his race. He filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York along with three others seeking class certification and damages. Shortly after filing, Defendant filed a counterclaim against the named plaintiffs, alleging that they had defaulted on their car loans. Jones and the others made a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that it did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. The District Court dismissed the counterclaim, holding that it was a permissive, rather than compulsory, counterclaim and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim. Defendant 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.