Connection lost
Server error
Courvoisier v. Raymond Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man being attacked by rioters mistakenly shot an approaching police officer, believing him to be one of the assailants. The court held that the man’s self-defense claim could be valid if his mistaken belief was reasonable under the circumstances.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the affirmative defense of self-defense in a tort action can be valid even if based on a reasonable but mistaken belief that the actor is in imminent danger of bodily harm from the person injured.
Courvoisier v. Raymond Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Courvoisier was at his home, located above his jewelry store, when a group of individuals attempted to break in late at night. After he expelled them, they were joined by others outside, forming a riotous crowd that threw stones and brickbats at him. To frighten them, Courvoisier fired his revolver. Plaintiff Raymond, a police officer on duty nearby, heard the shots and approached Courvoisier. Although Raymond allegedly identified himself as an officer, Courvoisier, who had impaired vision and was not wearing his glasses, saw a figure separate from the crowd and advance toward him in what he perceived as a threatening manner. Believing this individual was one of the rioters and was about to attack him, Courvoisier shot Raymond, causing serious injury. Courvoisier asserted self-defense, claiming he did not know Raymond was an officer and acted based on a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a defendant in a battery action successfully assert self-defense if he intentionally used force against a plaintiff based on a reasonable but mistaken belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm from that plaintiff?
Yes. The judgment for the plaintiff is reversed. A defendant’s justification for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris n
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a defendant in a battery action successfully assert self-defense if he intentionally used force against a plaintiff based on a reasonable but mistaken belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm from that plaintiff?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent in tort law, establishing that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore mag
Legal Rule
A defendant asserting self-defense in a tort action is justified in using Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitatio
Legal Analysis
The court found the trial court's jury instruction—which stated that if the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est l
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant is not liable for battery if they acted in