Wills, Trusts & Estates keyed to Dobris
Wendland v. Wendland
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:
Conservetee rolled his truck at high speed in a solo car accident. As a result of the accident, Conservetee was left severely impaired both physically and mentally. Throughout the treatment of Conservetee, Conservator visited him daily, often accompanied by their children, and authorized treatment as necessary to maintain Conservatee’s health. Conservator had authorized three surgical procedures to fix the placement Conservetee’s feeding tube. When requested to approve a fourth operation, Conservator sought the opinion of Conservetee’s brother, her daughter, and Conservetee’s physicians. After refelction, Conservator determined that Conservetee would have not wanted anymore life sustaining measures to be taken. Conservator sought approval from the court to have the feeding tube removed and to let Conservetee die. Conservator presented evidence, attested to be Conservetee’s brother and daughter, that Conservetee would not have wanted to stay alive given his conditions. Conserve tee’s mother and sister objected. The lower court ruled for Conservetee’s sister and mother. The appellate court ruled for Conservator. Conservetee’s sister and mother appeal to this Court.
- 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.