Connection lost
Server error
LAVENDER v. KURN 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 railroad worker was killed, with competing theories of accidental death by a train hook or murder. The Supreme Court held that a jury verdict based on circumstantial evidence must stand if there is any evidentiary basis, even if other conclusions seem more reasonable.
Legal Significance: Establishes an extremely deferential standard of appellate review for jury verdicts in FELA cases. An appellate court cannot reweigh evidence if there is any “evidentiary basis” for the jury’s conclusion, effectively protecting the jury’s right to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence.
LAVENDER v. KURN 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
L.E. Haney, a railroad switch-tender, was found unconscious near railroad tracks shortly after a train had backed past his position. He later died from a fractured skull. There were no eyewitnesses to the incident. The petitioner, Haney’s administrator, sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence. Petitioner’s theory was that Haney was struck by a mail hook protruding from the side of the moving train. Evidence was presented that the hook could swing outward and, if Haney were standing on a nearby mound of dirt, could have struck him at the precise height of his injury. The respondent railroads countered with a theory that Haney was murdered by a transient, pointing to the dark, unsecured area and the later discovery of Haney’s empty wallet. The respondents also presented evidence suggesting it was physically impossible for the mail hook to have struck Haney. A jury returned a verdict for the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the petitioner’s theory was “mere speculation and conjecture” and that there was no substantial evidence of negligence to support the verdict.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May an appellate court set aside a jury verdict in a FELA case by reweighing conflicting evidence and determining that the plaintiff’s theory of causation is based on speculation, even if there is some evidentiary basis for the jury’s conclusion?
No. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is reversed. A 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
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
May an appellate court set aside a jury verdict in a FELA case by reweighing conflicting evidence and determining that the plaintiff’s theory of causation is based on speculation, even if there is some evidentiary basis for the jury’s conclusion?
Conclusion
Lavender v. Kurn establishes a highly deferential standard for reviewing jury verdicts, 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 co
Legal Rule
An appellate court's function in reviewing a jury verdict is exhausted once 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. Dui
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the Missouri Supreme Court improperly invaded 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 proi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A jury verdict in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) case