Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Duncan
Helling v. Carey
Citation:83 Wash.2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974)
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:
Barbara Helling (Plaintiff) first visited Dr. Thomas Carey and Dr. Robert Laughlin (Defendants) in 1959 concerning her eyesight. She was fitted with contact lenses but returned numerous times over the next nine years complaining about irritation in her eyes. In 1968, when the plaintiff was thirty-two and had lost her peripheral vision and some central vision, the defendants conducted an eye pressure test for the first time and discovered the plaintiff suffered from glaucoma. The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging that their failure to conduct a pressure test was negligence resulting in her near total loss of vision. Through expert testimony, the defendants established that routine eye pressure tests for people under the age of forty were not required by their profession, and argued that they thus had not breached the standard of care.
- 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.