Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Mueller
Hedel-Ostrowski v. City of Spearfish
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:
On September 18, 1999, Dawn Hedel-Ostrowski (plaintiff) visited a public park in the City of Spearfish (City) (defendant) with her children. A swing Hedel-Ostrowski was using broke; her resulting fall caused nerve damage. On September 12, 2002, Hedel-Ostrowski sued the City for negligence and filed claims against Miracle Recreation Company, Playpower, Inc., and Cameron Holdings Corp. (defendants). On November 7, 2002, Hedel-Ostrowski moved to amend her complaint to add a nuisance count against the City and negligence and nuisance claims against an additional defendant, Keith Hepper (defendant), who headed the City’s parks and recreation department. The City moved for summary judgment, contending that the negligence claim against it and both claims against Hepper were barred by the statute of limitations. The City further argued that the nuisance claim against it should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City and Hepper. Hedel-Ostrowski 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.