SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Kuney
Davis v. Jacoby
Citation:
1 Cal. 2d 370, 34 P.2d 1026 (1934).
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Mrs. Davis was the niece of Mrs. Whitehead. Prior to her marriage to Mr. Davis, Mrs. Davis lived for a significant time with the Whiteheads. Mr. and Mrs. Whitehead had no children of their own and treated Mrs. Davis like their own daughter. In 1913, Mrs. Davis married Mr. Davis and moved to his home in Canada. Between 1913 and 1931, the Davises and Whiteheads often visited each other and had a close relationship. In 1930, Mrs. Whitehead’s health began to fail and, in 1931, Mr. Whitehead placed Mrs. Whitehead in a private hospital. Mr. Whitehead’s health also began to fail around this time and he started to experience financial troubles.
In March 1931, Mr. Whitehead began writing the Davises about the Whiteheads’ troubles. On April 9, 1931, Mr. Whitehead expressed that he was having financial troubles as well and stated that having Mr. Davis in California with him would be helpful. On April 12, 1931, Mr. Whitehead wrote again with a definite offer to the Davises requesting Mrs. Davis help with Mrs. Whitehead and Mr. Davis help with finances until both the Whiteheads death. Mr. Whitehead promised in exchange for such services Mrs. Davis would inherit the Whiteheads’ entire estate. Mr. Davis received the letter on April 14 at his place of employment, and read the letter to Mrs. Davis over the phone. Mr. Davis then immediately sent a letter via air mail to Mr. Whitehead accepting his proposition and advising that they could not leave until April 25 because Mr. Davis needed to appear in court on April 22 as an executor of his mother’s estate. On April 15, Mr. Whitehead wrote acknowledging receipt of the April 14 letter.
On April 22, 1931, Mr. Whitehead committed suicide and, upon notice of such, the Davises left immediately for California. Mrs. Davis then commenced care for Mrs. Whitehead until Mrs. Whitehead’s death on May 30, 1931. Following Mrs. Whitehead’s death, the Davises learned information regarding inheritance of the estate was incorrect and the Whiteheads’ wills devised the estate to Mr. Whitehead’s nephews: Geoff Double and Rupert Whitehead.
- 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.
19m 28s
