Confirm favorite deletion?
Evidence Keyed to Park
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.
Citation:588 F.2d 626 (1978)
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:
On March 23, 1973, Daniel Mahlandt, then 3 years, 10 months, and 8 days old, was sent by his mother to a neighbor’s home on an adjoining street to get his older brother, Donald. Sophie was a bitch wolf, 11 months and 28 days old, who had been kept at the state zoo, until she was given to the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. Daniel was attacked by Sophie. Later that day, Mr. Poos found Mr. Sexton at the Tyson Research Center and told him what had happened. The court denied plaintiff’s offer to prove that Mr. Poos told Mr. Sexton, that, Sophie had bit a child. A meeting of the Directors of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc., was held but Mr. Poos was not present at that meeting. There was a great deal of discussion about the legal aspects of the incident of Sophie biting the child but the court again denied the offer of the minutes of the meeting. The expert as to the behavior of wolves opined that the larcerations on Daniel’s body were not wolf bits or wounds caused by wolf claws. The jury brought a verdict for the defense.
- 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.