Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Prosser
Popejoy v. Steinle
Citation:820 P.2d 545
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:
Connie Steinle drove to Douglas, Wyoming to purchase a calf for her seven-year-old daughter to raise on the family’s ranch. While en route to Douglas, Connie’s vehicle collided with that of Ronald Popejoy’s (plaintiff). Connie died as a result of the accident. Fifteen months after the collision, Ronald experienced severe neck and back pain. He underwent two separate surgeries as a result and sought funds to finance the operations. Connie’s estate had already been probated and closed, so Ronald’s creditor’s claim was rejected. Ronald then filed a complaint against the estate of Connie’s deceased husband, William (defendant) under the joint enterprise theory. Ronald premised his theory on the belief that Connie was on a “business trip” to pick up a calf for the family ranch on the day of the fateful accident. Therefore, William was liable for Connie’s negligent driving as a member of the alleged joint enterprise. The trial court found that William had no financial or other interest in Connie’s trip to Douglas. The court found in favor of William’s estate. Ronald appealed.
- 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.