Civil Procedure Keyed to Hazard
Bustop v. Superior Court
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:
In 1976, the California Supreme Court decidedCrawford v. Board of Education, 551 P.2d 28(1976), which ordered the Los Angeles Unified School District to form a plan that would racially integrate students within the school system. Over the course of the next fourteen years, the political process took place and a plan was eventually formed that would, among other things, require some students attend schools not within their geographic district so as to ensure racial integration. The school district eventually submitted the plan to the original trial court for approval. During this stage, Bustop, a non-profit advocacy group opposing the suggested movement of students to new schools, moved to intervene in the action, arguing that theCrawforddecision did not require the kind of mandatory bussing of students that the plan eventually mandated. The trial court denied Bustop’s motion. Bustop 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.