Connection lost
Server error
Volland-Golden ex rel. Estate of Volland v. City of Chicago 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 deceased plaintiff’s testimony from his prior criminal trial was admitted in a subsequent civil rights lawsuit against police. The court found the state prosecutor was a “predecessor in interest” with a similar motive to cross-examine the plaintiff, satisfying the hearsay exception for former testimony.
Legal Significance: This case exemplifies the modern, functional interpretation of “predecessor in interest” under FRE 804(b)(1), rejecting a strict privity requirement in favor of a practical analysis of whether the prior party had a similar motive and a commensurate stake in developing the testimony.
Volland-Golden ex rel. Estate of Volland v. City of Chicago 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
John Volland was arrested by two Chicago police officers following a traffic stop. The accounts of the incident given by Volland and the officers were starkly contradictory. Volland claimed the officers stopped him without cause, pepper-sprayed, beat, and arrested him after he threatened to call their supervisor. The officers claimed Volland was driving on the wrong side of the street, became hostile, and pushed an officer, necessitating the use of force to effect a lawful arrest. Volland was subsequently tried in state criminal court on charges of resisting a peace officer and battery. At trial, Volland testified at length and was subject to a thorough cross-examination by the Assistant State’s Attorney (ASA). The jury acquitted Volland on all charges. Volland then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit against the officers and the City of Chicago. Before the civil trial, Volland died of natural causes. His estate, as plaintiff, moved to admit the transcript of his criminal trial testimony into evidence. The defendants objected, arguing the testimony was inadmissible hearsay.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a deceased plaintiff’s testimony from a prior criminal trial, where he was cross-examined by a state prosecutor, admissible against defendant police officers in a subsequent civil rights lawsuit under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1)?
Yes, the prior testimony is admissible. The court held that the State 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
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
Is a deceased plaintiff’s testimony from a prior criminal trial, where he was cross-examined by a state prosecutor, admissible against defendant police officers in a subsequent civil rights lawsuit under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1)?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear framework for admitting former testimony against 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 fugiat nulla pariatur. E
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), testimony given by an unavailable witness 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the two contested elements of FRE 804(b)(1)(B): 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 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. Exce
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A deceased plaintiff’s testimony from his own criminal trial is admissible
