Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Babcock
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
Citation:521 U.S. 591 (1997)
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:
A series of asbestos claims were transferred to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After consolidation parties reached a global partial settlement. The settlement attempted to certify all people with potential asbestos claims that had not yet filed suit to be certified pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes. The settlement was intended to create a fund for certain asbestos diseases. The district court approved the settlement and certified the class. On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the lower court’s approval of the settlement finding that class certification was not satisfied, and that while class certification for the purpose of settlement is allowed, the requirement of FRCP 23 must still be met. The appellate court found error with this certification because the class failed to demonstrate that common issues of fact predominated over other questions as required by FRCP 23(b)(3) and that the named class representatives would adequately represent the class. Windsor petitioned the Supreme Court which granted certiorari.
- 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.