Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Marcus
McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
Citation:355 U.S. 220 (1957)
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:
Petitioner’s son purchased a life insurance policy from an Arizona company. Respondent subsequently assumed the Arizona company’s insurance obligations. Respondent mailed a reinsurance certificate to the son, in California, offering to continue to insure him. The son accepted, and thereafter mailed premiums due under the policy to Respondent. After the son died, Petitioner, as the beneficiary under the policy, sought to recover the proceeds. Respondent refused to pay, claiming that the son had committed suicide. Petitioner recovered a judgment against Respondent in California state court. She sought to enforce the judgment in Texas, but the Texas courts refused to give full faith and credit to the California judgment. Respondent never had an office in California, nor did it solicit any business in California (with the exception of the son’s policy).
- 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.