Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Right v. Breen
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 stopped his vehicle at a red traffic light when it was struck from behind by Defendant’s vehicle. There was minor damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but no physical injuries reported at the accident scene. Later, Plaintiff sued, alleging that as a result of Defendant’s negligence he had suffered bodily injury. At trial Plaintiff presented evidence that his injuries resulted from the collision, while Defendant presented evidence that the injuries resulted from Plaintiff’s five previous auto accidents. The jury returned a verdict of zero damages. The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside this verdict, arguing that he was entitled to at least nominal damages because he had suffered a technical legal injury that admittedly had been caused by Defendant. Defendant objected, arguing that although she had admitted to causing the collision, she had denied the causal relationship between the collision and the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. The trial court nevertheless granted the plaintiff’s motion and awarded nominal damages of $1. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court reversed, finding that nominal damages should not have been awarded.
- 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.