Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Zielinski v. Philadelphia Piers, Inc.
ProfessorTodd Berman
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Plaintiff filed a complaint in April of 1953 for personal injuries received in February of 1953 while he was working on Pier 96 in Philadelphia for McCarthy as a result of a collision of two forklifts. Plaintiff alleged that one of the forklifts was owned, operated and controlled by the agents and employees of the defendant, Philadelphia Piers, Inc. Defendant’s answer denied the allegation. No bad faith was found on the part of Defendant, nor intent to deceive. The forklift that collided with Zielinski’s forklift carried the initials P.P.I. however. It later turned out that a year before the accident, the business of moving freight on Defendant’s piers had been transferred to Carload Contractors, Inc. At the time Defendant was leasing both the forklift in question and the pier on which the accident occurred to Carload Contractors. Plaintiff sought an order from the court stating the forklift in question belonged to the defendant at the time of the accident.
- 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.