Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Epstein
Doe v. Gonzaga University
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 a student at Gonzaga University (Gonzaga). He had a sexually intimate relationship with Jane Doe, who was also a student at Gonzaga. Roberta League (League) an employee at Gonzaga overheard Julia Lynch (Lynch), a student, tell another student that Jane Doe was in obvious physical pain after Plaintiff raped her. League knew Plaintiff and told Dr. Susan Kyle (Kyle), another employee at Gonzaga, what she had overheard. League and Kyle met with Lynch. According to Lynch, Jane Doe told Lynch that Plaintiff had sexually assaulted her three times. Adelle Nora, an investigator, conducted an extensive investigation into the possibility of date rape. The school investigated the crime with multiple witnesses including Jane Doe. Plaintiff was not informed. The dean of Gonzaga met with the university’s employees and thereafter decided not to sign Plaintiff’s moral character affidavit for Plaintiff’s teaching certification. Plaintiff sued Defendant for defamation. The jury awa rded Plaintiff $500,000.00. Defendant appealed.
- 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.