Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Subrin
Brandon v. Chicago Board of Education
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:
Brandon filed an action against the Chicago Board of Education under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He hired attorney Paul E. Peters. The Clerk of the United States District Court entered the name Paul F. Peters. All motions and paper worked were sent to Attorney Paul F. instead. Attorney Paul F being considerate even filed paper work that they had the wrong attorney and that he was not part of that particular case. The Clerk still mailed all filings there. A year later Paul E, Brandon’s attorney went to the Clerk wondering what was going on with the case. He found out about the wrong attorney and wrong address and filed a Rule 60 motion to seek relief from judgment. Unfortunately Peter E put the wrong docket number. When Peter E showed up at court to argue the motion the clerk realize the second mistake and stated the motion would not be heard that day and it needed to be refilled under the correct docket number. Defendant came on the date of the originally scheduled hearing even after the Clerk stated it would not be heard that day, argued with the court and the court decided to deny relief under Rule 60. Brandon appealed that judgment.
- 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.