Torts keyed to Best
Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc.
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 Agriss (Plaintiff), a truck driver and union steward, sued his employer Roadway Express (Defendant) for defamation after a warning letter from the company alleged that Plaintiff opened company mail in violation of company policy. Almost a year after the letter was sent out, Plaintiff received questions and comments from employees and union officials. Plaintiff claimed the allegations were false. However, word spread throughout the company. As a result, Plaintiff’s general character of integrity and honesty was questioned. The letter that accused Plaintiff of opening company mail was also sent out to three managers and to a union representative. At trial, Plaintiff claimed that he was not aware of the company sending out warnings for opening company mail. He also claimed that the accusation was more meaningful to company employees than a regular individual because it tarnished his character and reputation. The trial court did not find the charge of opening company mail as defamatory on its face; thus, it did not warrant imposing liability for libel per se. The trial court required Plaintiff to allege special damages with specificity. After Plaintiff failed to prove special damages, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, 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.