Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Franklin
Hammontree v. Jenner
Citation:20 Cal.App.3d 528, 97 Cal.Rptr. 739.
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:
Defendant, Mr. Jenner, suffered from epileptic seizures and suffered from one when he crashed into plaintiff’s Mr. and Mrs. Hammontree’s bike shop. During this accident, Mrs. Hammontree suffered personal injuries. Mr. Jenner had suffered from epileptic seizures since 1952, when he experienced his first. Since then, he has been treated by Dr. Hyatt. He suffered from another seizure in 1953 and was diagnosed as a person with epilepsy. In 1954 the defendant was prescribed Dilantin, and in 1955, he was prescribed phelantin. Defendant has taken phelantin from 1955 to 1967, the year of the accident. The department of Motor Vehicle is aware of the defendant’s conditions and he was placed on probation under which every six months he had to report to the doctor and advise the department in writing. In 1960 this review turned annual. At trial Dr. Hyatt testified to believing that with the medication the defendant was safe to drive. The plaitniff’s brought suit against the defendant.
- 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.