Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Van Zee v. Hanson
Citation:630 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2011)
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 enlisted in the Army. Plaintiff’s Army recruiter told him that he needed to undergo a background check. Plaintiff informed the recruiter that he had a juvenile record and signed a release form for his probation-officer and court records. Defendant (a court clerk) disclosed Plaintiff’s juvenile court records to the Army recruiter. The recruiter subsequently cancelled Plaintiff’s enlistment. Plaintiff sued Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of his constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. During the proceedings, the district court requested copies of Plaintiff’s release forms. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, on the ground that her actions did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy because Plaintiff had executed the release forms. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that Defendant’s motion was transformed into a motion for summary judgment which permitted a reply from Plaintiff under FRCP Rule 12(d) because the pleadings in district court did not include the release forms on which the court relied .
- 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.