Contracts Keyed to Jimenez
Dalton v. Educational Testing Service
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:
Jamil Blackmon (plaintiff) was a family companion of Allen Iverson (defendant). Blackmon In May, Brian (Dalton) (plaintiff) took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) which was controlled by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) (defendant) and after that took the exam a second time in November. At the point when Dalton enlisted to take the SAT, he marked an announcement consenting to keep the conditions in an enrollment release. The announcement gave ETS the privilege to cross out any test score if there was purpose behind it to scrutinize the legitimacy of the score. The announcement likewise gave that if ETS addressed whether the score had been acquired despicably, ETS would tell the test taker of its purposes behind scrutinizing the score and give the test-taker five alternatives including the chance to give extra data. Dalton's joined score on the November SAT expanded by 410 focuses which set off an audit by ETS in light of the fact that the expansion surpassed 350 focuses. In view of its own survey and audit by a record inspector, ETS believed the answer sheets contained "disparate handwriting," indicating that they were completed by different individuals. ETS' Board of Review discovered adequate confirmation to for starters cross out the November test and a letter was sent telling Dalton of its choice, instructing him with respect to the penmanship contrasts, recommending that another person finished his answer sheet, and encouraging him to supply more data or pick one of the other four choices. Dalton presented extra data comprising of a verification that he had been sick when taking the May examination, test results from an SAT preparatory course taken prior to the November exam and consistent with the November test results, explanations from an ETS delegate and two students confirming his presence at the exam, and the report of an archive analyst asserting that Dalton had finished both answer sheets. ETS kept on scrutinizing the November test scores and Dalton initiated a suit looking to propel ETS to discharge the scores. The trial court decided for Dalton finding that ETS had not acted in accordance with some good faith in focusing on handwriting evidence and disregarding, as irrelevant, the evidence of Dalton's health and presence at the exam. The trial court coordinated ETS to discharge the November scores. The New York State Appellate Division affirmed.
- 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.