Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Field
Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education
Citation:649 F.2d 434
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:
Harrington (plaintiff) filed suit against the Board of Education (defendants) in federal district court, which decided the case for Harrington and awarded her compensatory damages. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sustained the factual finding of discrimination, but reversed the judgment on the grounds that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not authorize compensatory damages. While Harrington’s appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monell v. Department of Social Services, which held that municipalities (which would include the Board of Education) are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This decision would make Harrington eligible for damages under the factual finding of discrimination. Harrington then brought another action in the district court, alleging discrimination and seeking relief under § 1983. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, on the ground that Harrington’s claim was barred by res judicata. Harrington appealed.
- 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.