Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Jones v. LA Fitness International, LLC
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:
Khalif Jones, Plaintiff, was injured while playing basketball on an indoor court at one of L.A. Fitness International, LLC, Defendant’s, health clubs. Plaintiff had hit the back wall, resulting in the dislocation of his elbow. Plaintiff’s complaint stated that Defendant was negligent because it did not make the basketball court safe and it did not warn its members of the dangerous conditions that result from the insufficient padding on the back wall. Defendant timely removed the action from state court to federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Defendant motioned for summary judgment and to preclude the testimony of Jones’s expert witness, Steve Bernheim, on the grounds that it is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 702. Bernheim, a sports and recreation consultant, stated that the basketball court failed to comport to national standards because the basketball court had insufficient clearance between the baselines and the back wall and insufficient padding along the back wall. Defendant contended that Bernheim was not qualified to give a medical or biomechanical opinion. The district court reviewed Defendant’s motions.
- 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.