Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Marcus
Shaffer v. Heitner
ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Appellee alleged that the individual defendants had violated their duty to Greyhound by causing it and its subsidiary to engage in actions that resulted in the corporations being held liable for substantial damages in a private antitrust suit and for a large fine in a criminal contempt action. All of the activities in these suits took place in Oregon. Simultaneously with his complaint, Appellee filed a Motion for an Order of Sequestration of the Delaware property of the individual defendants, pursuant to Delaware state statute. The sequestration order was signed the day it was filed and, as a result, caused approximately 82,000 shares of Greyhound common stock to be seized. The court held that the stock was located in Delaware, so it was subject to seizure in Delaware. The twenty-one defendants affected by the seizure, filed a Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Vacate the Sequestration Order. They contended that the seizure was a violation of due process, there were not sufficient minimum contacts to sustain Delaware’s jurisdiction under International Shoe, and the stocks were not capable of being seized in Delaware. The Court of Chancery denied these motions. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed this judgment.
- 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.