SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Duncan
Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Co.
Citation:
685 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)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:
Mosella Schaffer (defendant), who lived on a 50-acre farm raising exotic animals, rented a room in her garage to Scott Bullington. Bullington told his friend, Scott Irvine (plaintiff), about the animals, and the defendant gave the plaintiff an open invitaiton to visit many times over the next two years. During these visits, the plaintiff and others would pet the tigers through the fence. One night, the plaintiff consumed alcohol with Bullington and then went to visit the animals while Bullington went to a Christmas party. While petting a tiger through the fence, the tiger pulled his arm through the fence. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries and underwent six surgeries. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and punitive damages. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that assumption of risk and other similar defenses are not available in a strict liability animal case.
- 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.
6m 51s
