Connection lost
Server error
Galloway v. United States 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 veteran sued for insurance benefits, claiming insanity since 1919. The Court upheld a directed verdict against him, finding an eight-year gap in his evidence meant a jury verdict in his favor would be pure speculation, not a reasonable inference.
Legal Significance: The case affirms the constitutionality of the directed verdict, establishing that the Seventh Amendment does not prevent a judge from taking a case from the jury where the evidence is legally insufficient to support a rational verdict.
Galloway v. United States 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
Petitioner Joseph Galloway sued the United States to recover benefits under a lapsed war-risk insurance policy, alleging he became totally and permanently disabled by insanity on or before May 31, 1919. To meet his burden of proving continuous disability, Galloway presented testimony of erratic behavior during his military service in 1918 and from a friend who observed his changed mental state between 1919 and approximately 1922. However, Galloway presented no evidence of his condition or activities for a subsequent eight-year period from 1922 to 1930, despite having married during this time. Evidence from 1930 onward confirmed his insanity. An expert witness for Galloway opined, based on the pre-1922 and post-1930 evidence, that the disability was continuous. At the close of all evidence, the district court granted the government’s motion for a directed verdict, finding the evidence insufficient for a jury to conclude the disability was continuous from 1919. Galloway appealed, arguing the directed verdict deprived him of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does granting a directed verdict for insufficiency of evidence, particularly where a plaintiff fails to provide evidence for a crucial multi-year period, violate the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury?
Yes. The directed verdict was proper and did not violate the Seventh 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.
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
Does granting a directed verdict for insufficiency of evidence, particularly where a plaintiff fails to provide evidence for a crucial multi-year period, violate the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent in civil procedure, affirming the constitutionality 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
Legal Rule
The Seventh Amendment preserves the basic institution of a jury trial but 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 pa
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions by conducting a two-part 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 laborum. Lorem ipsum dolo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A directed verdict is proper when a plaintiff fails to provide