SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Evidence Keyed to Park
Wilson v. Clancy
Citation:
747 F.Supp. 1154 (1990)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:
This is a diversity case, in which the plaintiff, a disappointed testamentary beneficiary, brings a third-party malpractice suit against the attorney who drafted the 1987 Last Will and Testament of Dr. Thomas A. Hurney. Most of the property held by Dr. and Mrs. Hurney was held in joint tenancy. In an attempt to stave off summary judgment, plaintiff, in her opposition, has found a previously undiscovered witness, a Ms. Bouman, who had done Dr. Hurney’s bookkeeping and tax work in the several years before his death. Her affidavit proffers testimony to the effect that neither Mr. Clancy nor Dr. Hurney even mentioned to her that Dr. Hurney would need to change the titling of his assets in order to make the 1987 will effective. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to the inference that such advice was never given Dr. Hurney by Mr. Clancy, and that such inference is sufficient to carry the case to a jury.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
12m 52s
