Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Babcock
Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Louis H. Catrett, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp
Citation:826 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
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:
Plaintiff Catrett sues asbestos companies for allegedly causing the death of her husband because he was exposed to their products. Defendant Celotex moved for summary judgement claiming that Plaintiff Catrett failed to present evidence that her husband was exposed to Celotex’s products. In response, Plaintiff Catrett submitted three documents that suggested her husband was exposed to Celotex’s products. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgement because Plaintiff Catreet lacked sufficient evidence to show that her husband was exposed to Celotex’s products in the District of Columbia or elsewhere. The court of appeals reversed on the ground that Defendant Celotex had not offered any evidence to support its motion for summary judgement. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals finding that under Adickes a moving party is not required to show evidence of absence of a genuine issue of material fact and remanded the decision as to whether or not the countervailing evidence offered by Plaintiff Catrett to counter Defendant Celotex’s motion for summary judgement would be sufficient to carry Catrett’s burden of proof at trial.
- 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.