Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Mueller
Kleissler v. United States Forest Service
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:
The U.S. Forest Service (Service) (defendant) approved two projects in the Allegheny National Forest to allow private companies to harvest trees. Six Pennsylvania and Ohio residents and an Indiana environmental organization (plaintiffs) sued to enjoin the logging and for a declaration that the projects violated federal statutes. Several third parties sought to intervene: the Ridgway, Bradford, Kane, Johnsonburg, and Smethport school districts; the townships of Cherry Grove, Hamilton, Hamlin, Highland, Wetmore, and Jones; timber companies Payne Forest Products, Inc. (Payne), Spilka Wood Products Co. (Spilka), Ridgway Lumber Co. (Ridgway Lumber), Brookville Wood Products, Inc. (Brookville), and Northeast Hardwoods (Northeast); and Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group, Inc. (AHUG), a nonprofit whose members were logging concerns. By statute, the school districts and townships were entitled to a share of revenues from logging in the forest. Payne and Spilka had been awarded contracts for one of the projects. Ridgway Lumber was the winning bidder for the other; its contract was on hold for the lawsuit. Brookville and Northeast did not have current contracts with the Service, but most of their income derived from such contracts. Members of AHUG had current contracts with the Service and were expected to bid on future projects. The district court denied intervention to all movants except Payne and Spilka. The other movants 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.
- 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.