Civil Procedure Keyed to Spencer
Weisgram v. Marley Co.
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 December 30, 1993, Bonnie Weisgram’s home caught fire. When firefighters arrived at the scene, they found Bonnie dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. Her son, Chad Weisgram (Plaintiff), brought a products liability suit against the manufacturer of the heated baseboards in Bonnie’s house, Marley Co. (Defendant), alleging that a defect in the electric baseboards caused the fire that killed Bonnie. At trial, Plaintiff presented evidence from three experts, who testified that the heater contained a defect that caused the heater to overheat and catch fire. Defendant objected to this testimony, arguing that it was unreliable and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 702 and the standard set forth by the Court inDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579(1993). The trial court overruled the objection and denied both of Defendant’s motions for a judgment as a matter of law under F.R.C.P. 50. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, and Defendant appealed. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Plaintiff’s experts’ testimony was inadmissible because it was speculative and not scientifically sound, and without that testimony Plaintiff had not presented enough evidence to sustain the jury verdict. Plaintiff appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- 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.