Civil Procedure Keyed to Mueller
Letourneau v. Hickey
Laurent and Alicia Letourneau (plaintiffs) and Michael and Susan Judd (defendants) owned neighboring properties. After the Letourneaus tapped maple trees on a swath of land whose ownership was disputed, the Judds filed suit in 1998 for a declaration of the property line. The Letourneaus were represented by Charles Hickey (defendant). The court ultimately ruled that the disputed property belonged to the Judds but that the Letourneaus had established a prescriptive right to continue harvesting sap from trees. The Letourneaus did not appeal. After the Letourneaus failed to pay their attorney, Hickey brought a collection action against them. The Letourneaus attempted to evade service and never filed a responsive pleading. Hickey received a default judgment in October 1999. In February 2001, the Letourneaus sued Hickey and the Judds, alleging that Hickey was liable for malpractice and that Michael Judd had slandered them at trial with testimony that their syrup tasted like tires. The Letourneaus also sought relief from the judgment in the Judds’ favor. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court held that the Letourneaus had waived their malpractice claim against Hickey by failing to assert it as a compulsory counterclaim in the collection suit. As for the Judds, the court concluded that the alleged slander was privileged and that the Letourneaus had failed to prove actual harm. The court dismissed the Letourneaus’ motion for relief from the judgment without a hearing or the issuance of findings. The Letourneaus appealed.
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.
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.