Property Keyed to French
Woo v. Smart
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:
William D. Yee had a close relationship with S. Hing Woo (Defendant) for 19 years. Yee was diagnosed with coronary heart disease in 1985. On March 27, 1989, Yee believed that he was near death. That day, he gave Defendant two checks for $42,700.00 and $80,000.00, and the next day he gave her a check for $1900.00. He told her that he wanted her to have the money if he died. On March 29, Yee died. The next day, Defendant received the proceeds for the $42,700.00 and $1900.00 checks. She was unable to receive the proceeds on the $80,000.00 check because it represented funds in a savings account. The administrator of Yee’s estate (Plaintiff) filed suit for the return of the $44,600 that Defendant had received from the two checks. Defendant argued that Yee had made giftscausa mortis, and so she was entitled to the proceeds of the checks. The trial court found that there was no giftcausa mortisbecause the money had not been delivered to Defendant before Yee’s death. Defendant 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.