Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Prosser
Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc v. Anderson
Citation:334 Ark. 561, 976 S.W.2d 382
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:
Shirley Anderson (plaintiff-appellee) was shopping at Montgomery Ward & Co.’s (defendant-appellant) store. While at the store, she suffered a fall and was badly injured. Store personnel sent her to the hospital, where her bill for surgical and other medical-services expenses totaled $24,512.45. She reached an agreement with the hospital to have her bill discounted by fifty percent. Anderson sued Montgomery Ward & Co. for damages. At trial, Anderson presented the bill for $24,512.45 (which did not reflect the discount) as proof of her medical expenses. Montgomery Ward moved in limine to prohibit Anderson from presenting the total amount billed by the hospital as evidence. Instead, Montgomery Ward requested that the evidence be limited to the amount that reflected the discount from the hospital. The trial court ruled that the negotiated discount from the hospital was a collateral source, and allowed the entire total amount billed to be admitted into evidence. Montgomery Ward appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, arguing that the trial court’s ruling on its motion in limine was erroneous.
- 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.