Civil Procedure Keyed to Hazard
O’Gee v. Dobbs Houses, Inc.
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:
Kathleen O’Gee (Plaintiff) was a flight attendant for United Airlines. While working on a flight in April 1972, she injured her back while latching a cold buffet back into its appropriate location in the plane’s cabin. Dobbs Houses, Inc. (Defendant) put the buffet on the plane and failed to latch it in its appropriate place. Over the course of the next year, Plaintiff suffered from significant back pain. She spent much of the time bedridden and was unable to work. After consulting with several doctors, she received surgery on her back. Following the surgery, United Airlines reassigned her to work on smaller aircraft. She performed with distinction in this new role and was cited for her perfect attendance records in 1975 and 1976. Plaintiff sued Defendant in federal district court, claiming negligence in failing to secure the buffet. After a seven-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor, awarding her $170,000 in damages. Defendant challenged the damages award. The motion was denied by the trial judge, who noted that any verdict of $200,000 or less would be sustained. 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.