Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon
Burdick v. Superior Court
Citation:233 Cal. App. 4th 8 (2015)
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:
In 2012, Sanderson and Taylor (Plaintiffs) posted blog entries criticizing Nerium (Defendant), a skincare company, and one of its anti-aging products. Burdick (Defendant), the company’s corporate consultant, posted on his Facebook page alleging that the “blogging scorpion” uses multiple social security numbers and has been charged with domestic violence multiple times, among other things. Plaintiffs, California residents, filed suit against Burdick, an Illinois resident, and Nerium for defamation and other intentional torts. Burdick filed a motion to quashservice of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Because Burdick is an Illinois resident with no significant connection to California, he argued that the California court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him. The lower court denied the motion and Burdick filed a petition for peremptory writ of mandate/prohibition to challenge the lower court’s decision.
- 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.