Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
Commonwealth v. Donahue
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:
Donahue (Defendant) purchased $21.55 worth of clothes from Mitchelman. However, when Mitchelman went to Defendant’s house to collect the money, an argument arose about the bill. Defendant collected the clothes and placed them in a chair and put $20 on a table and then told Mitchelman that he could either have the clothes or the $20. Mitchelman took the money and told Defendant that he owed him $1.55. Defendant demanded his money back and Mitchelman refused. Defendant attacked Mitchelman, threw him to the ground, and began choking him until Mitchelman gave him his wallet containing $29. Defendant was charged with robbery and assault. At trial, Defendant’s counsel denied that Defendant received the wallet and instead, claimed that Defendant had the right to use force to recover his own money from Mitchelman. The trial court instructed the jury that if Defendant choked or otherwise assaulted Mitchelman, then Defendant was guilty of assault, even if he used force to retrieve money from Mitchelman that Defendant believed was his own. Defendant was found guilty of assault and he 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.