Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts keyed to Best
Martin v. Herzog
Citation:126 N.E. 814 (N.Y. 1920)
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:
Elizabeth Martin and her husband were driving their carriage at night without lights on, in violation of New York’s Highway Law. While driving, the Martins’ carriage was struck by a car driven by Samuel Herzog, who had driven his car over the center lane. Elizabeth’s husband died in the collision, and Elizabeth brought a negligence suit against Herzog.
In a jury trial, the judge instructed the jury that it could choose whether or not to consider the Martins’ violation of New York’s Highway Law in determining if the Martins were contributorily negligent. The jury decided that Herzog was the cause of the collision and found for the Martins. Herzog appealed, claiming that the trial judge should have instructed the jury to consider the Martins’ violation of the Highway Law in determining if the Martins were contributorily negligent. The Appellate Division found for Herzog on the issue and remanded the case for a new trial.
- 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.