Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Robertson
Harrison v. United States
Citation:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2002. 284 F.3d 293.
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:
Kenyeda Taft (the Patient) informed Dr. Louis Las, the Defendant that her first child suffered from Erb’s Palsy as a result of a shoulder dystocia that occurred during a vaginal birth due to the baby’s large size of nine pounds. The Defendant’s usual practice at the time for patients who had had a prior large baby was to determine the estimated fetal weight via ultrasound at about 37 weeks gestation. If the estimated weight exceeded 4500 grams, the Defendant would offer the patient an elective Cesarean section (C-section). If the estimated weight was under 4500 grams, the Defendant would recommend inducing labor at 37 or 38 weeks gestation.
After the Defendant met with the Patient, he obtained the delivery record of the treating obstetrician from the Patient’s first child. The record indicated that the birth occurred without complication and was the “gold standard” of what happens during a delivery. This lead the Defendant to conclude that the Patient did not experience a shoulder dystocia during her first birth. Instead, the Defendant believed that the Patient’s first child developed Erb’s Palsy spontaneously. The Defendant testified that he would have discussed the option of an elective C-section with a patient if there was documented evidence of a previous shoulder dystocia resulting in an injury, but since no such evidence existed here, he did not.
- 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.