Civil Procedure Keyed to Marcus
Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, 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:
Doris M. Swartz (Plaintiff) was injured on May 4, 1979, when she fell on a staircase in the Gold Dust Casino. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court on April 30, 1980. The defendants listed were Gold Dust Casinos and Does I through IV (Defendants) the true names and identities of these defendants were not known or ascertainable, but they were liable to Plaintiff for damages. In terms of Gold Dust Casinos, the complaint alleged that the Defendant had negligently permitted the staircase to become bare, worn, and slippery. Gold Dust Casinos denied the allegations. In the answer to the complaint, Gold Dust Casinos disclosed that it leased the premises from Cavanaugh Properties. In December 9, 1980, Plaintiff filed supplemental answers, which disclosed that they had employed engineering consultant, Stephen I. Rosen (Rosen). The report from Rosen to Plaintiff’s attorney stated that the conditions on the stairway violated the local building code. On February 19, 1981, Plaintiffs stated that they had discovered that the true name of Doe I was Cavanaugh Properties and they prayed for leave to amend their complaint. The district court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On April 9, 1981, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Their Complaint to add claims for relief and Cavanaugh Properties as a defendant. The amended complaint alleged that Defendant, Cavanaugh Properties, was responsible for the design and installation of the stairway. Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint was granted and the complaint was served on Cavanaugh Properties on May 8, 1981. Cavanaugh Properties raised the two-year statute of limitations in its answer and filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on the fact that the Amended Complaint was not filed within the time period allowed by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs rely on the relation back provisions. Defendant, Cavanaugh Properties, argued in reply that the Amended Complaint sets forth a new and different cause of action that does not relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint; that adding Cavanaugh Properties as a defendant does not comply with the prerequisites to relation back; and that the filing of the Motion to Amend the Complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations did not toll the running of the statute.
- 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.