Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Spencer
Young v. New Haven Advocate
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:
Young (Plaintiff), a Virginia prison warden, sued newspapers the New Haven Advocate (the Advocate) and the Hartford Courant (the Courant), two editors, and two reporters (Defendants) for defamation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Several articles about a Connecticut policy transferring inmates to Virginia prisons, which were published online, implied that Plaintiff was racist and encouraged abusing prisoners. The Advocate is a New Haven newspaper with no subscribers in Virginia. The Courant is a Hartford newspaper with eight subscribers in Virginia. Neither newspaper has offices or solicits business in Virginia. The reporters never travelled to Virginia and do not live, work, or have property there, though they did make phone calls to Virginia to conduct interviews. Both newspapers’ websites are geared toward Connecticut residents and make no mention of Virginia. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, asserting that jurisdiction was proper under Virginia’s long-arm statute and constitutional due to Defendants’ online activities. Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- 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.