Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon
Gunn v. Minton
Citation:133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013)
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:
Gunn represented Minton in an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, brought in federal district court. Summary judgment was entered against Minton in the patent infringement case, in which his patent was declared invalid based on an “on sale” bar to patent recognition. Minton’s filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that an “experimental use” exception to the “on sale” bar applied. The district court denied the reconsideration motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Minton then filed a state court action for legal malpractice against Gunn. The stated trial court granted summary judgment in Gunn’s favor. Minton appealed, seeking to bring the malpractice case again, this time in federal district court. He argued that the Texas state court lacked jurisdiction over his legal malpractice claim, which arouse out of the federal patent claim, so that he should be allowed to proceed anew in the malpractice action in federal court. The Texas appellate court rejected Minton’s argument. The Texas Supreme Court reversed. 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.