Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Robertson
Holtz v. Holder
Citation:Supreme Court of Arizona, 1966. 101 Ariz. 247, 418 P.2d 584.
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:
The Plaintiff, Cynthia Holtz, was driving north on 24th Street in Phoenix, Arizona. She stopped at the intersection of 24th Street and Thomas Road for a red light in a lane closest to the center line of the road. The Defendant, James Holder, also stopped for the light in the lane immediately to the right of the Plaintiff. A short distance across from the intersection, the right lane of 24th Street was partly blocked off by piles of dirt from a construction crew. This caused the street to be narrowed to a single lane on the left, nearest to the center line. When the street light changed to green, the Plaintiff and the Defendant both started driving north on 24th Street but due to the narrowing of the street near the construction, there was not enough room for both of the cars to travel and they collided.
As a result of the collision, the Plaintiff’s car was forced west, across the center line of 24th street and into a pickup trick that was in a line waiting for the light to change. After hitting the pickup truck, the Plaintiff’s care came to rest before it was struck again by a milk truck owned by Carnation Company, another defendant in the suit, which was being driven by one of its employees.
Two jury instructions were given at trial, both of which the Plaintiff claims were erroneous. The instructions stated that the jury could not find in favor of the Plaintiff if the jury could not determine which of the two Defendants caused each of Plaintiff’s injuries. The court rejected an instruction proffered by the Plaintiff which permitted the jury to find joint and several liability if the jury was unable to allocate damages between the two Defendants.
- 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.