Connection lost
Server error
Marcus v. Staubs ex rel. Staubs 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: An 18-year-old drove minors to get alcohol. After they became intoxicated, one stole a car and crashed, causing death and injury. The court reversed summary judgment against the driver, finding his duty and the foreseeability of the harm were disputed factual questions for a jury.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that while a defendant’s duty is a question of law for the court, the foreseeability of harm—a key component of both duty and proximate cause, especially concerning intervening criminal acts—is a question of fact for the jury when facts are disputed.
Marcus v. Staubs ex rel. Staubs 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 Jonathan Marcus (18) drove two minors, Samantha (14) and Kelly (15), along with his adult friend, Woodward, to a convenience store. Factual disputes exist regarding Marcus’s involvement in a plan for Woodward to purchase alcohol for the minors. Woodward purchased four 40-ounce containers of malt liquor after receiving money from Samantha. It is disputed whether Woodward gave the alcohol to the girls or if they stole it from him. The girls later consumed the alcohol at a party. After being told to leave, Samantha and another minor, Misty (14), were unable to secure a ride; it is disputed whether they called Marcus and he refused. Misty and Samantha then stole a truck. Misty, while intoxicated, crashed the vehicle, killing Samantha and seriously injuring another passenger, Jessica (13). The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on liability, finding Marcus was negligent as a matter of law.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment by finding as a matter of law that a defendant who facilitated minors’ access to alcohol owed a duty and proximately caused their subsequent injuries, despite disputed facts regarding his knowledge and the foreseeability of intervening criminal acts?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded 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 nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
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
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment by finding as a matter of law that a defendant who facilitated minors’ access to alcohol owed a duty and proximately caused their subsequent injuries, despite disputed facts regarding his knowledge and the foreseeability of intervening criminal acts?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that foreseeability is a critical jury question Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim venia
Legal Rule
A tortfeasor whose negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about injuries 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 do
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment because the trial 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist,