Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Underwood
Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank
Citation:5 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. App. 1992)
In 1982, three-week-old Michael Osborn contracted the aids virus from a blood transfusion in the course of surgery on his hear at the University of California at San Fran Medical Center. Qualified experts for the plaintiff claimed that the defendant Irwin’s blood testing and donor screening practices prior to Michael’s surgery were negligent for failure to perform certain tests on the blood in light of concerns about AIDS at the time. However, there was uncontradicted evidence that the defendant Irwin was doing as much if not more in the areas of testing and screening than any other blood bank in the country and there is no question that it followed accepted practices within the profession.
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.
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.