Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Dawson
Bridge City Family Medical Clinic, P.C. v. Kent & Johnson, LLP
Citation:270 Or. App. 115, 346 P.3d 658.
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:
Kent & Johnson represented Bridge City in an arbitration. Bridge City initiated correspondence with Kent & Johnson’s malpractice insurer, Professional Liability Fund (PLF), alleging professional malpractice and requesting to discuss options to settle its claims against Kent & Johnson. PLF responded to Bridge City directing it to make a “specific proposal” if there was interest in resolving its claim. Bridge City offered to settle for $40,000 to which PLF countered with $10,000 in return for a mutual release. Similar correspondence went back and forth between the parties before they ultimately reached a settlement agreement of $19,000. PLF advised Bridge City via letter that the mutual release was enclosed for its review and signature, and that the check would be delivered to Bridge City once PLF received the signed release. PLF did not receive a response from Bridge City and it sent two follow-up letters before receiving a response from Bridge City’s attorney that Bridge City had decided not to settle.
- 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.