Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
Citation:137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017)
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:
Plaintiffs, most of whom were not California residents, sued Defendant in California state court, alleging that the pharmaceutical company’s drug Plavix had damaged their health. Defendant was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, and it maintained substantial operations in both New York and New Jersey. Although it engaged in business activities in California and sold Plavix there, Defendant did not develop, create a marketing strategy for, manufacture, label, package, or work on the regulatory approval for Plavix in the State. The nonresident Plaintiffs did not allege that they obtained Plavix from a California source, that they were injured by Plavix in California, or that they were treated for their injuries in California. The California Superior Court denied Defendant‘s motion to quash service of summons on the nonresidents’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Defendant‘s extensive activities in the State gave the California courts general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the California court had no jurisdiction.
- 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.