Confirm favorite deletion?
Evidence Keyed to Sklansky
United States v. Montana
Citation:199 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 1999)
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:
The defendant was tried and convicted of bank robbery and other related offenses. The defendant was alleged to have been the getaway driver while his accomplice robbed the bank. The defendant argued that he did not know that the alleged accomplice planned to rob the bank. Shortly before the and of the trial, the accomplice gave the defendant’s lawyer a note for the defendant’s mother. After the mother read the note, she told the lawyer that the note demanded money in exchange for the accomplice’s favorable testimony. The following morning, a deputy U.S. marshal heard the accomplice tell the defendant to tell his father that “it’s going to be $10,000” for the favorable testimony. The district court allowed the marshal to testify. The defendant claimed that the marshal’s testimony was impermissible hearsay.
- 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.