Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Smith v. Richmond Memorial Hosp
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 was admitted to Richmond Memorial Hospital in July, 1988. Approximately thirty-three weeks pregnant, she suffered a premature rupture of the uterine membranes, and remained at the hospital for approximately one week. During her stay, she developed acute complications and as her condition worsened, the hospital brought in a physician, not her attending, who without examination transferred her to another facility. There, after she consented, she underwent and emergency caesarian section during which both mother and child sustained substantial injuries. The child sustained severe brain damage. The court found that the treatment and transfer requirements contained in COBRA applied when an emergency medical condition or active labor commenced after a patient was admitted and their condition stabilized. Thus, Plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts and allegations to state a claim pursuant to the federal statute. The court rejected Defendant’s assertion of trial court error in holding that the notice of claim provisions of a Virginia statute did not apply to COBRA claims.
- 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.