Conflicts Keyed to Currie
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R.
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:
Dice (Plaintiff), a railroad fireman, suffered serious injury when the Akron (Defendant) train in which he rode jumped the tracks. Plaintiff signed receipts for $924.63 in payments he received from Defendant. Defendant represented that the receipts were nothing more than that, but actually they were a release of any liability on the part of Defendant. Plaintiff brought an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act in an Ohio trial court. He was awarded $25,000, but Defendant was given judgment in N.O.V. because of Dice’s (Plaintiff) “supine negligence” in failing to read the release. The state court of appeals reversed the judgment N.O.V. on grounds that federal law controlled and that the verdict of the jury must stand because there was sufficient evidence of fraud. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed that ruling on grounds that state, rather than federal law, controlled; that under that law, a man of ordinary intelligence who can read is bound by a release he signs; and under Ohio law, factual issues as to fraud were properly decided by the judge, not the jury. Dice (Plaintiff) appealed.
- 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.