Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Frier v. City of Vandalia
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:
The Vandalia (D) police resorted to having a garage tow Frier’s (P) car which was parked illegally, in traffic. Frier (P) did not get a traffic citation nor was he appointed a hearing before the car was towed or after he refused to pay the needful fee to have it returned. He sued the town and the garage for recovery of his car which had allegedly been wrongfully possessed by them. The trial court ruled that Vandalia (D) exercised a legitimate right in towing Frier’s (P) car which was obstructing traffic, and so did not grant replevin. The plaintiff filed a federal suit under 42 U.S. C. S 1983, claiming relief and damages as well as compensation from Vandalia (D) on the grounds that it had deprived him of his car without a fair trial or other due process. The suit was dismissed by the district court since it did not state a foundation for the right to relief. Frier (P) appealed arguing that he could still file a federal case using a different theory than the one which gives grounds for his state court suit.
- 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.