Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Babcock
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.,
Citation:500 U.S. 20 (1991)
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 Gilmer was fired by Defendant Interstate after working there for six years. Plaintiff Gilmer filed an age discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Comission (EEOC) and sued Defendant under the Age Discriniation in Employment Act (ADEA) claiming that he was fired because of his age. Defendant Interstate’s filed a motion to compel arbitration citing an agreement that Plaintiff Gilmer signed when he signed his registration application to the New York Stock Exchange which stated the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute against Defendant. The district court denied Defendant Interstate’s motion to compel arbitration stating that under Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. Congress did not intend to take away ADEA claimants’ ability to file suit in court. The court of appeals reversed, finding no Congressional intent to invalidate arbitration agreements. Plaintiff Gilmer appealed and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- 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.