Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Avila v. Citrus Community College District
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:
Plaintiff Avila, a Rio Hondo Community College student, played baseball for the school’s team. On January 5, 2001, he was playing a preseason game against Citrus Community College. During the game, a Rio Hondo pitcher hit a Citrus College batter with a pitch; when Avila came to bat in the next inning, the Citrus College pitcher hit him in the head with a pitch, cracking his batting helmet. Avila alleges it was an intentional “beanball” throw in retaliation for the previous hit batter. Avila staggered, felt dizzy, and complained to his manager of being in pain. Nevertheless, his manager told him to go to first base and to stay in the game. At second base, he was still in pain, so a Citrus College player yelled to the Rio Hondo dugout that they needed a pinch runner. Avila walked off the field and went to the bench. No one tended his injuries. He sued both colleges, his manager, the helmet manufacturer, etc. The trial court dismissed the action, the court of appeals reversed, and the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the action was barred by assumption of the risk.
- 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.