Also known as: briefs · brieve · brieves · writ
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A written statement prepared by counsel that sets forth the legal and factual arguments of a party in litigation, especially on appeal, together with supporting authorities.
A limited or concise duration, extent, or amount.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A written statement prepared by counsel that sets forth the legal and factual arguments of a party in litigation, especially on appeal, together with supporting authorities.
Roe filed suit challenging the Texas abortion law. Her appellate brief argued that the statute violated her constitutional rights and cited supporting precedent. The court considered the arguments set forth in the brief when deciding the case.
A limited or concise duration, extent, or amount.
Brenda Booth visited the forum state for a single afternoon meeting. While she was there, the plaintiff served her with process in a contract dispute that arose elsewhere. The court upheld personal jurisdiction because her brief presence allowed tag jurisdiction even though the claim was unrelated to the visit.
During a period of civil unrest, Congress considered suspending the writ of habeas corpus. The brief emergency did not meet the constitutional threshold for suspension because no rebellion or invasion had occurred.
In March 1970, Jane Roe, a single woman residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted a federal action against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face. She also sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the statutes. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant. She wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. She could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal abortion. James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes. Two such prosecutions were pending against him in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions. He claimed that for many cases he was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint also naming the District Attorney as defendant. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple. Mrs. Doe was suffering from a neural-chemical disorder. Her physician had advised her to avoid pregnancy until her condition materially improved. She had discontinued use of birth control pills pursuant to medical advice. If she should become pregnant she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court for the Northern District of Texas. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class and Dr. Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. The Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy and did not have standing. It concluded that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face. The court dismissed the Does' complaint while denying injunctive relief. The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford appealed to the Supreme Court from that part of the District Court's judgment denying the injunction. The defendant District Attorney cross-appealed from the grant of declaratory relief. Both sides also took protective appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending decision by the Supreme Court.
View caseAdvocacy groups submitted an amicus brief in the marriage equality litigation. The brief detailed historical discrimination and urged recognition of same-sex marriage under the Constitution. The Court referenced arguments from the brief in its opinion.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View casePlaintiffs submitted an expert report with their pretrial brief on the admissibility of scientific evidence. The brief argued that the methodology satisfied the reliability standard. The court evaluated the report in conjunction with the brief when ruling on the motion.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View case2 common questions
A brief must set forth the party's legal and factual contentions along with supporting authorities. Courts expect clear organization, accurate citations, and compliance with page limits and formatting requirements.
A brief is a written document that presents arguments and authorities in advance of a hearing. Oral argument allows counsel to respond to questions and emphasize key points but does not replace the written submission.
A judgment creditor obtained a judgment against the limited partnership but the writ of execution came back unsatisfied. The creditor then pursued the general partner after satisfying the statutory precondition of a return showing partial nonpayment.
1 common questions
A brief physical presence permits tag jurisdiction if the defendant is served while in the forum state. The claim need not relate to the visit.
Supporting sources
…existence of the commissions he would confine further remarks to three questions: (1) whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case; (2) whether it will lie to a Secretary of State in any case whatever; and (3) whether in the present case the court may award a mandamus to James Madison, Secretary…