Scriba

Six landmark cases,
briefed the Scriba way.

Read-only FIRAC samples across Torts, Contracts, Con Law, Civ Pro, and Crim Pro. Every one is what your own brief looks like when you finish reading.

Torts — Duty & Foreseeability

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.

248 N.Y. 339 (1928)

Cardozo's foreseeability doctrine: duty runs only to plaintiffs within the reasonably foreseeable zone of danger.

Read brief
Contracts — Consequential Damages

Hadley v. Baxendale

9 Exch. 341 (1854)

Foundational rule for consequential damages: recoverable only if arising naturally or reasonably contemplated at contracting.

Read brief
Con Law — Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Established judicial review: courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with the Constitution.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Erie Doctrine

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

304 U.S. 64 (1938)

Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law; there is no general federal common law.

Read brief
Crim Pro — Fifth Amendment

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Custodial interrogation requires the now-familiar warnings before any statement may be used against a suspect.

Read brief
Con Law — Equal Protection

Brown v. Board of Education

347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal; overruled the 'separate but equal' doctrine of Plessy in public education.

Read brief
Torts — Product Liability

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

217 N.Y. 382 (1916)

Abolished the privity requirement in negligence: a manufacturer owes a duty of care to any foreseeable user of an inherently dangerous product.

Read brief
Torts — Intentional Torts (Battery)

Vosburg v. Putney

80 Wis. 523 (1891)

The 'eggshell plaintiff' and intent-to-contact rule: a defendant is liable for all harm flowing from an unlawful touching, even harm no one could have foreseen.

Read brief
Torts — Negligence (Res Ipsa Loquitur)

Byrne v. Boadle

2 H. & C. 722 (1863)

Introduced res ipsa loquitur: some accidents so plainly bespeak negligence that the plaintiff need not prove specific wrongdoing.

Read brief
Torts — Duty to Warn

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976)

Mental-health professionals owe a duty to protect identifiable third parties from serious threats made by their patients.

Read brief
Torts — Intent (Battery)

Garratt v. Dailey

46 Wash. 2d 197 (1955)

Intent for battery is satisfied by substantial certainty that a harmful or offensive contact will result — no desire to harm required.

Read brief
Torts — Defense of Property

Katko v. Briney

183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971)

A landowner may not use deadly force — such as a spring gun — to defend unoccupied property against non-violent trespass.

Read brief
Contracts — Mutual Assent (Objective Theory)

Lucy v. Zehmer

196 Va. 493 (1954)

A contract's existence is measured by outward manifestations of assent, not undisclosed subjective intent — even where the seller claims he was joking.

Read brief
Contracts — Offer vs Invitation to Deal

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

251 Minn. 188 (1957)

A newspaper ad can be a binding offer where its terms are clear, definite, explicit, and leave nothing open to negotiation.

Read brief
Contracts — Unilateral Offer

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

1 Q.B. 256 (C.A. 1893)

A public advertisement promising a reward can be a unilateral offer accepted by performance; deposit of funds shows serious intent.

Read brief
Contracts — Consideration

Hamer v. Sidway

124 N.Y. 538 (1891)

Forbearance from a legal right is sufficient consideration, even where the promisor suffers no economic detriment and the promisee gains no obvious benefit.

Read brief
Contracts — Implied Terms

Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon

222 N.Y. 88 (1917)

Cardozo implies a duty of best efforts into an exclusive-dealings contract, saving it from the illusoriness defense.

Read brief
Contracts — Shrinkwrap Licenses

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg

86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

Shrinkwrap license terms inside the box can be enforceable when the buyer has an opportunity to read them and reject the goods.

Read brief
Contracts — Damages (Economic Waste)

Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.

382 P.2d 109 (Okla. 1962)

When the cost of full performance greatly exceeds the resulting increase in property value, damages are limited to diminution in value.

Read brief
Property — First Possession

Pierson v. Post

3 Cai. R. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805)

Wild animals are reduced to possession only by capture or mortal wounding coupled with continued pursuit — mere chase creates no property right.

Read brief
Property — Discovery Doctrine

Johnson v. M'Intosh

21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)

Only the federal government, as successor to the discovering European sovereign, may acquire title from Native tribes; private purchases from tribes are void.

Read brief
Property — Eminent Domain (Public Use)

Kelo v. City of New London

545 U.S. 469 (2005)

Taking private property to transfer it to private developers for economic revitalization can satisfy the 'public use' requirement of the Fifth Amendment.

Read brief
Property — Right to Exclude (Limits)

State v. Shack

58 N.J. 297 (1971)

The right to exclude yields when necessary to protect the human dignity and legal rights of persons living on the land as farmworkers.

Read brief
Property — Excised Human Cells

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990)

A patient retains no property interest in cells removed from his body, but the physician owes fiduciary duties of disclosure regarding research use.

Read brief
Property — Adverse Possession

Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz

304 N.Y. 95 (1952)

Adverse possession requires actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession, plus (in New York at the time) substantial improvement or cultivation of the entire claimed parcel.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Personal Jurisdiction

Pennoyer v. Neff

95 U.S. 714 (1878)

A state cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident absent personal service within the state or the attachment of in-state property at the outset of the suit.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Personal Jurisdiction

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

326 U.S. 310 (1945)

Introduced the 'minimum contacts' framework: personal jurisdiction is proper where a defendant's contacts with the forum make suit consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Personal Jurisdiction

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

444 U.S. 286 (1980)

Foreseeability of a product entering the forum is not enough; the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum for jurisdiction to attach.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Erie / Rules Enabling Act

Hanna v. Plumer

380 U.S. 460 (1965)

A valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applies in diversity cases even if it conflicts with state procedural law, so long as the Rule is authorized by the Rules Enabling Act and constitutional.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Pleading Standards

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

550 U.S. 544 (2007)

Federal Rule 8 requires a complaint to plead facts sufficient to make a claim to relief 'plausible on its face,' retiring Conley's 'no set of facts' language.

Read brief
Civ Pro — Pleading Standards

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

556 U.S. 662 (2009)

Extended Twombly's plausibility standard to all civil actions and clarified the two-step analysis: strip conclusory allegations, then assess plausibility of what remains.

Read brief
Con Law — Necessary and Proper Clause

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

Congress has implied power to enact laws — such as chartering a national bank — that are appropriate means to constitutional ends; states may not tax federal instrumentalities.

Read brief
Con Law — Commerce Clause

Gibbons v. Ogden

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)

Federal commerce power reaches all commercial intercourse among the states, including navigation, and preempts conflicting state monopolies.

Read brief
Con Law — Commerce Clause (Aggregation)

Wickard v. Filburn

317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Congress may regulate purely local activity if, in the aggregate, it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

Read brief
Con Law — Substantive Due Process

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Struck down maximum-hours law for bakers as an unconstitutional interference with the liberty of contract; the case has since been widely repudiated.

Read brief
Con Law — Executive Power

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

343 U.S. 579 (1952)

The President lacks inherent constitutional power to seize private property (steel mills) absent congressional authorization; Jackson's tripartite framework governs the analysis.

Read brief
Con Law — Second Amendment

District of Columbia v. Heller

554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

Read brief
Crim Pro — Fourth Amendment

Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347 (1967)

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; a warrantless recording of a phone-booth conversation violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Read brief
Crim Pro — Fourth Amendment (Cell Phones)

Riley v. California

573 U.S. 373 (2014)

Police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest.

Read brief
Criminal Law — Necessity Defense

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens

14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884)

Necessity is not a defense to murder: shipwrecked sailors who killed and ate the cabin boy to survive were guilty of murder.

Read brief
Criminal Law — Entrapment

Jacobson v. United States

503 U.S. 540 (1992)

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime independent of the government's inducement.

Read brief
Con Law — Equal Protection (Affirmative Action)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Fixed racial quotas in university admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause, but race may be considered as one factor among many to promote diversity.

Read brief

Write yours in an afternoon.

Every brief you make in Scriba is yours — anchored to the opinion, exportable, searchable across every course you take.

Start 7-day free trial