Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Field
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley
Citation:211 U.S. 149 (1908).
ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa
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:
Mr. and Mrs. Mottley (Plaintiffs) had entered into a contract with Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. (Defendants) after they were injured in a train accident. In exchange for not bringing any claims regarding their injuries, Mr. and Mrs. Mottley were given free passes on the railroad for the rest of their lives. In 1906, Congress passed the Hepburn Act, which prohibited giving free passes on the railroads. Defendant then refused to renew the passes for the Plaintiffs, claiming that the Hepburn Act prohibited them from renewing the passes.
Plaintiff’s pleading alleged that the Hepburn Act did not prohibit renewing the passes and that if the act was interpreted as prohibiting the renewal, then it was in conflict with the Fifth Amendment, because it would deprive the plaintiffs of their property without due process.
- 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.