Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Schiele v. Hobart Corp
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 worked as a meat wrapper for a Portland, Oregon company for approximately twenty-six years. In 1972, the company purchased a meat-wrapping machine that utilized a ventilator. The machine cut a type of meat-wrapping film that contained polyvinyl chloride (manufactured by the co-defendant chemical company). Plaintiff had been in good health prior to the time of the purchase. Shortly after she began using the device, she developed an array of health problems. Her condition worsened during her final year of employment. Almost immediately upon her leaving the job she was hospitalized with pneumonia. Her doctors informed her, in April, 1974, that tests indicated polyvinyl chloride fumes were the possible cause of her condition. She filed her action in March, 1976. Given these dates, Plaintiff contended that her filing fell within the statute of limitations. Defendants claim that the statute of limitations began to run when she first became aware of the possible connection between her symptoms and the cause of her illness, in early March, 1974 – thus missing the filing window permitted by the statute of limitations.
- 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.