Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Whisnant v. United States
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 Whisnant worked for a company that provided seafood to the commissary of a Naval base. The commissary is operated by a government agency, DeCA. DeCA regulations require periodic safety inspections, but DeCA employees are allowed to decide how and when to conduct such safety inspections. The base contracts out maintenance work to Johnson Controls, whose inspections showed that mold had accumulated in the meat department of the commissary. Over the next three years, plaintiff among others allegedly became ill due to the toxic molds, resulting in the government closing the meat department. He allegedly contracted pneumonia, headaches, cough, and other health problems and sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for negligence in allowing workers to come into contact with the mold despite known health hazards. The government moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s suit was barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, which provides that the FTCA shall not apply to “any claim based upon the exercise of, or failure to exercise, a discretionary function.” The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed and the Ninth Circuit reversed.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.