Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Troupe v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
Citation:2009 WL 1938787 (July 2, 2009), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56678 (M.D. Ga. July 2, 2009)
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:
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the State Court of Bibb County, Georgia, alleging that she was injured during a slip and fall on the premises of Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered severe physical injuries and excruciating, severe physical distress as a result of Defendant’s negligent inspection and maintenance of the property. She sought damages for medical expenses in an amount “in excess of $ 13,637.00” and prayed for an additional award of “all damages allowed under Georgia Law including, but not limited to, recovery for special and general damages, including pain and suffering, both mental and physical, in the amount to be proven at the time of trial.” Plaintiff further sought to recover punitive damages, the cost of litigation, and “such other and further relief” as the court deemed just and proper. Defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal contained copies of Plaintiff‘s medical records that described the injuries. Plaintiff claimed that the injury aggravated a pre-existing back injury and complained of unrelenting pain for more than a year after the injury. Plaintiff claimed that the pain could not be controlled with medication. Additionally, the notice of removal contained evidence that Plaintiff was self-employed and was forced to reduce her workload of cleaning homes due to the injury. Plaintiff then moved the district court to remand the case back to state court.
- 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.