Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Barnett
Sullivan v. O’Connor
Citation:363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
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:
Patient, a professional entertainer, entered into a contract with Surgeon to improve her appearance by undergoing two plastic surgery operations on her “long and prominent” nose. Patient had to have three operations on her nose and her appearance worsened resulting in an asymmetrical nose; the end result could not be improved with further surgery. She paid $622.65 for the procedures. The judge instructed the jury that Patient could recover her out-of-pocket expenses incident to the operations and that she could also recover damages flowing directly, naturally, proximately, and foreseeably from Surgeon’s breach, which would include disfigurement of the Patient’s nose including the effects on her mind from such disfigurement. The judge also said that Patient could recover for pain and suffering due to the third operation. Loss of earnings was not to figure into the calculation of damages as there was no proof on that issue.
- 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.