Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Appelhans v. McFall
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:
Maxine Appelhans (plaintiff) fell and broke her hip when William McFall (William) (defendant), a five-year-old, collided into her from behind as he rode his bicycle. William’s parents (defendants) were not watching William when the accident occurred. Appelhans sued William and his parents in an Illinois state court, alleging that William had negligently caused her injury and that his parents had been negligent in failing to properly supervise and instruct him. Appelhans’s complaint did not allege any specific prior incidents involving William’s failure to safely ride his bike, nor did she assert that William’s parents had the opportunity to control William at the time of the accident. The McFalls moved to dismiss Appelhans’s complaint. The trial court granted their motion on the grounds that Appelhans had failed to allege facts in support of the parents’ negligence and that William’s age precluded his liability as a matter of law. Appelhans 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.