Instructions: Brief the following (fictional) judicial opinion, Steve Dave v. Bu

Instructions: Brief the following (fictional) judicial opinion, Steve Dave v. Butch, by writing a case brief.

Importantly:

Do NOT use quotes from the opinion. Use your own words (except as indicated below)
Remember to include only the most relevant information. There is purposely information below that is not supposed to be in your case brief. (Which is modeled after real judicial opinions which almost always include extraneous information.)

As noted in a lecture, different headings are sometimes used, as they are in the course materials. (Kerr, for example, does not include all the categories below.) For our purposes, however, use the following:

NAME OF CASE: Simply copy the name of the case as shown.
CITATION: Simply copy the citation.
COURT: Simply copy the name of the court issuing the opinion.
FACTS: These are the most relevant facts that happened to the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) or other relevant parties before anyone sued anyone.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The first sentence should indicate that the plaintiff(s) sued the defendant(s) and what the legal claims were. Next will come a sentence indicating what happened at the trial court (i.e., who won what.) This is followed by a descriiption of any appeals that were made and the results of them. The last sentence will indicate that a party appealed to this court.
ISSUE(S): List the legal issue(s) that the court is addressing in this case. (This is usually much narrower than whatever issues were raised at the lower court.) Phrase the issue(s) as a question and generalize beyond the specific parties (e.g., “Can a landowner shoot a trespasser with a bow and arrow?” and not “Whether Mr. Frank could shoot Mr. Joe or not.”)
HOLDING(S): The answer(s) to the question(s) posed above. If the issue(s) is/are written correctly, then the holding(s) will merely answer the question(s) posed (e.g., “No, a landowner cannot shoot a trespasser with a bow and arrow.”)
REASONING: This is a step-by-step descriiption of how the court answered the question(s) posed. This will always involve Rule(s) of Law that the court cites, as well as how the facts apply to the Rule(s) of Law. (“The Tower Doctrine allows landowners to protect their property but with swords or other handheld weapons, not with projectile devices. An arrow is a projectile, not a handheld weapon.”)
JUDGMENT: This is what the court does in regards to the decision at the lower court. Usually it will be “Affirmed” (if they agree with the court below) or “Reversed” (if they disagree.” This section will usually be very few words.
SUMMARY OF CONCURRING OR DISSENTING OPINIONS: If a decision is not unanimous, some of the judges might write a concurring opinion (typically when they agree with the holding, but not the reasoning) or dissenting opinion (typically when they disagree with the reasoning and/or the holding.) If a decision has such an opinion (the below does not), then write a one-paragraph summary of it/them. Focus on why the judge(s) wrote a concurrence or dissent.

Steve Dave v. Butch
291 N.E. 2d 320 (2022)
Highest and Most Supreme Court of Centerstate

Majority Opinion, Unanimous

Steve Dave was walking down a street, looking at his phone and not paying much attention. Butch was driving down the street, distracted because his phone fell off his dashboard. He crashed into Steve Dave, breaking bones. Later, at the hospital, Steve Dave became ill because a doctor gave him a medication that he indicated he was allergic to.

Steve Dave sued Butch for negligence. Butch argued that Steve Dave shared in the negligence, and he is therefore not liable for the broken bone injuries. Butch also cross-claimed, arguing that Dr. Whoops and the hospital were responsible for the week-long stay in the hospital, although this matter is not before this court. The trial court found for the plaintiff. The intermediate court affirmed. Butch appealed to this court, arguing that the rule of law was misapplied.

We agree with the appellant. The trial court and intermediate court misapplied this jurisdiction’s concept of contributory negligence. As we established in the Paste v. Sauce decision, if a plaintiff is at least 50% liable, they cannot collect from a defendant. The jury below found that the plaintiff was 51% liable. Last we checked, 51% is greater than 50%. Therefore, we are persuaded by the appellant’s argument.

For these reasons, we reverse.

ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER NOW