Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Subrin
Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
Citation:681 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1982)
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:
Plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos and brought suit against Defendants. The district court entered a collateral estoppel order, finding that some issues in Plaintiffs’ case had been decided in Plaintiffs’ favor by a separate judgment for unrelated plaintiffs in a different asbestos case, Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. (1973). Borel, the plaintiff in that case, was an insulation worker who had been exposed to insulation products from 1936 to 1969. The jury in Borel found that Borel would have avoided the danger of asbestos in the insulation if proper warning had been given. Borel found that no one in the insulation industry had provided warnings prior to 1964; that Johns-Manville started to place warnings on its products in 1964; and that Fibreboard started to place warnings on its products in 1966. Defendants appealed, arguing that Borel did not necessarily decide that asbestos-containing insulation products were unreasonably dangerous because of the failure to warn. The special interrogatories answered by the Borel jury were general and not specifically directed toward the failure to warn.
- 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.