Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Carbone v. Tierney
Citation:864 A.2d 308 (N.H. 2004)
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:
Alfred Carbone hired Nancy Tierney, an attorney, to represent him in proceedings against his son, Daniel, in federal court. After his claim was dismissed by the court, Tierney did not file an appeal.
Carbone subsequently sued Tierney on several theories of malpractice, including: that Tierney neglected to specify an amount of damages in her claim to the court; that Tierney should have filed an appeal of the court’s dismissal of Carbone’s claim; and failed to attend a meeting associated with the litigation. A jury found for Carbone and awarded him an unspecified amount of damages.
Tierney appealed the district court’s findings on two grounds. First, Tierney argued that expert testimony was required to establish evidence that her actions were the cause of Carbone’s injuries. Second, Tierney stated that the trial court had incorrectly ruled when it found that she had the burden of proof in determining whether Carbone would have been able to recover damages in his original case.
- 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.