Case Citation: Delahanty v. Hinckley, 564 A.2d 758 (D.C. 1989). Parties: Thomas and Jean Delahanty, Plaintiffs / Appellants John Hinckley, Defendant / Appellee Facts: Thomas Delahanty was seriously injured when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley used a “Saturday Night Special” in the assassination attempt that was manufactured by R. G. Industries, a subsidiary of Roehm. Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against John Hinkley, R.G. Industries, the gun manufacturer, Roehm, the manufacturer’s foreign parent company, and individual officers of Roehm, for injuries Appellant Thomas Delahanty suffered when Hinkley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. The District Court dismissed appellants’ complaint against R.G. Industries, Roehm, and individual officers of Roehm for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit certified the question of whether, in the District of Columbia, “manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials may be strictly liable for injuries arising from these guns’ criminal use” to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Issues: ! Issue 1: Whether, in the District of Columbia, manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials may be held strictly liable for injuries arising from their criminal use?! Issue 2: Whether established theories of tort law in the District of Columbia provide a cause of action against gun manufacturers and distributors for injuries arising from the guns’ criminal uses?! Holdings: Issue 1: No. Manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials are not strictly liable for injuries arising from these guns’ criminal use. Issue 2: No. Established theories of tort law in the District of Columbia do not provide a cause of action against gun manufacturers and distributors for injuries arising from the guns’ criminal uses. Reasoning: Appellants advanced the following three theories in support of their position: Issue 1: a. Strict liability for sale of defective product The court rejected this theory of liability because appellants put on no evidence that the weapon Hinkley purchased and later used in the assassination attempt was in any way defective. Rather, appellants argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn of the dangers of criminal misuse of the gun. The court found this argument unpersuasive, pointing out that a manufacturer has no duty to warn because the dangerous nature of guns self-evident. b. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity Appellants argued that the manufacturer should be held liable because the Saturday Night Special is “inherently and abnormally dangerous with no social value. The “abnormally dangerous activity” doctrine had never been applied to gun manufacturers in the District of Columbia. The Court r ...

1. Case Citation: Delahanty v. Hinckley, 564 A.2d 758 (D.C.
1989).
Parties: Thomas and Jean Delahanty, Plaintiffs / Appellants
John Hinckley, Defendant / Appellee
Facts: Thomas Delahanty was seriously injured when John
Hinckley attempted to assassinate
President Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley used a “Saturday
Night Special” in the assassination
attempt that was manufactured by R. G. Industries, a subsidiary
of Roehm.
Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia
against John Hinkley, R.G. Industries, the gun manufacturer,
Roehm, the manufacturer’s foreign
parent company, and individual officers of Roehm, for injuries
Appellant Thomas Delahanty
suffered when Hinkley attempted to assassinate President
Ronald Reagan. The District Court
dismissed appellants’ complaint against R.G. Industries, Roehm,
and individual officers of
Roehm for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit certified the question of whether, in the
District of Columbia, “manufacturers
and distributors of Saturday Night Specials may be strictly
liable for injuries arising from these
guns’ criminal use” to the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals.

2. Issues: !
Issue 1: Whether, in the District of Columbia, manufacturers
and distributors of Saturday Night
Specials may be held strictly liable for injuries arising from
their criminal use?!
Issue 2: Whether established theories of tort law in the District
of Columbia provide a cause of
action against gun manufacturers and distributors for injuries
arising from the guns’ criminal
uses?!
Holdings:
Issue 1: No. Manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night
Specials are not strictly liable for
injuries arising from these guns’ criminal use.
Issue 2: No. Established theories of tort law in the District of
Columbia do not provide a cause
of action against gun manufacturers and distributors for injuries
arising from the guns’ criminal
uses.
Reasoning: Appellants advanced the following three theories in
support of their position:
Issue 1:
a. Strict liability for sale of defective product
The court rejected this theory of liability because appellants put
on no evidence that the weapon
Hinkley purchased and later used in the assassination attempt

3. was in any way defective. Rather,
appellants argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn of
the dangers of criminal misuse of
the gun. The court found this argument unpersuasive, pointing
out that a manufacturer has no
duty to warn because the dangerous nature of guns self-evident.
b. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity
Appellants argued that the manufacturer should be held liable
because the Saturday Night
Special is “inherently and abnormally dangerous with no social
value. The “abnormally
dangerous activity” doctrine had never been applied to gun
manufacturers in the District of
Columbia. The Court rejected this application of the doctrine,
since selling weapons is not an
abnormally dangerous activity “in and of itself.” In response to
appellants’ reliance on Kelly v.
R.G. Industries, 304 Md. 124, 497 A.2d 1143 (1985), the court
stated that it is not just cheap
guns that may potentially by used to commit crimes, and that
the Maryland legislature had
specifically overridden the Kelly decision.
Issue 2:
While the general rule is that no tort liability exists for harm
resulting from the criminal acts of
third parties, an exception sometimes comes in to play when a
special relationship exists between
parties. Examples of such “special” relationships include
landlord / tenant, hospital / patient, and

4. school / student relationships. The court declined to extend this
special relationship status to gun
manufacturers and sellers / gun purchaser, as Appellants neither
argued that any special
relationship existed, nor suggested any way that gun
manufacturers could prevent their gun
purchasers from misusing the purchased gun for criminal acts.
Decision:
Affirmed. The court answered the certified question from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. Traditional tort theories, such as
negligence and strict liability, provide no
basis for holding a gun manufacturer liable for injuries caused
by a buyer of the gun to a third
party.
Comment: This case gives a good example of how appellate
courts may certify issues to other
courts (either lower or in different jurisdictions) for opinions.
In this case, the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (federal appellate court)
certified the issue to a
Washington D.C. court because it presented a question of local
law, not federal law.
!
1

5. H ow to B r ief a C ase
P r epa r ed for the L egal Studies P rogr am
A me r ican P ublic U nive rsity System
D ecembe r 2013
I ntrodu ction : A case brief is a concise summary of the
significance of a case. It is a bit
like but with very special rules! It is a time-honored practice
used throughout
the legal profession and law schools. As a teaching tool, the
case brief forces the student to
identify and provide a written description of the most important
aspects of a case. Legal
precedent, also known as Stare D ecisis, is a doctrine which
governs much of our legal process.
and the
rationale underlying it ---- that is, how the judges arrived at
their decision ---- is essential to
the study of law. The case brief serves as a very useful vehicle
by means of which to analyze
and understand judicial decisions.
A case brie
aspects of a case. A case brief is not an invitation to re-write
the opinion or to paste together
ed on your
understanding of the case. Of cour words can be useful, if used
sparingly. A case brief should be concise; it should be no more

6. than 1-2 pages. There are at least
several different methods or models for writing the case brief;
these are based on personal
preferences. In the Legal Studies Program, however, the
format described here will be used for
all of the case briefs which you are required to write in your
courses. By using this uniform
format, you will gain familiarity with the case analysis and
brief writing process.
opinion, rather than a mere summary. Therefore, the first step
in the brief writing process is
always to thoroughly read the entire case. This includes reading
any concurring and dissenting
opinions of members of the court. In this regard, be very sure
that you are reading the entire
opinion! In some internet based sources, the Syllabus
(headnotes/summary) of the opinion is
presented at one link, the majority opinion is presented at
another link, etc. You need to read all
portions of the opinion as all of them are relevant to your
analysis of the case. For example, if
there are strong dissenting opinions based on key legal points,
this could predict what the court
might decide in the future on similar issues.
1. C ase N ame and C itation: As a header on the first page of
your brief, you should state
citation to the case. (See Bluebook resources in the APUS
library for more information about
Bluebook format.) It is essential that the reader of your case
brief know who initiated the
litigation and who appealed. For example, in the sample case

7. brief of the D elahanty case (see
accompanying materials), Thomas and Jean Delahanty are
clearly identified as the plaintiffs
(parties who initiated the litigation) and as appellants (parties
who sought appellate review of the
2
legal reporter in which the opinion is found, the volume and
page on which the case appears, and
the year in which the case was decided.
2. F acts: The Facts section is a short synopsis of the most
important facts of the case.
on of the court. Your
facts which were analyzed by the court. Although other factual
details might be interesting, only
include them if they give the reader t
include the nature of the lawsuit and the parties in the lawsuit.
The goal in the Facts section is to
would understand the facts of the case.
3. Proc edu ral H istory: The Procedural History section is a
summary of previous
proceedings between the parties from the time the case was
initially filed to the present. This is
important because most reported cases are appellate cases in

8. which a previous decision was
rendered in a trial court. It is essential that you understand how
the case arrived in the court, the
opinion of which you are briefing. Indeed, in many case brief
assignments, you will brief an
Opinion of the United States Supreme Court; in those instances,
the case will likely have been in
several different courts previously.
that you understand that the losing party appeals to the next
level of court.
The D elahanty case is an example of a somewhat unusual case,
but the unusual nature of
the case is a good illustration of why the Procedural History of
the case is so important. The
civil lawsuit was filed by the Delahantys in federal court
(United States District Court in the
District of Columbia). Their case was dismissed and they
appealed to the next level of federal
court (the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit). That federal
appellate court needed to obtain the view of the court in the
applicable local jurisdiction (the
District of Columbia) on a specific legal question. In order to
obtain that view, the federal
about the opinion which was rendered by the local court, the
District of Columbia Court of
Appeals.
4. Issue(s): The issue should be a yes/no question which
identifies the specific question
the court must decide in order to rule in the case.
distributors of Saturday Night Specials strictly liable for
injuries arising from their criminal use

9. There may be more than one main issue that the court must
decide.
If there are multiple issues, the issues should be set forth in a
number f
etc.
5. H olding(s):The Holding section succinctly states how the
court answered the issues
presented. Typically it includes a yes/no answer followed by
the issue presented written in an
answer format. It includes the legal principle relied on by the
court. If there are multiple issues,
there must be a corresponding number of holdings.
3
6. R easoning: This is a very important part of the brief. The
Reasoning section
describes why and how the court reached its holding in the case.
This may include an
application or revision of pre-existing legal principles, policy
reasons and/or negative effects
resulting from a different court ruling. If there are both a
majority and dissenting opinion issued
analyses. Likewise, if there is a concurring opinion, a brief
description should be included in an
additional subsection. If there are multiple issues, there must

10. be a corresponding number of sub-
sections within the Reasoning section.
7. D ecision: This section gives the Judgment rendered by the
court. Describe the final
it for additional proceedings?
8. C omments: Is there anything else that should be mentioned
about this case? Is it a
in the sense that the court significantly changed the law
concerned a particular
For example, in the D elahanty sample brief, a useful comment
would be that the case is a
good example of how appellate courts certify issues to other
courts in order to obtain the legal
opinion of the other court on a particular issue.
Powered by iRubricLegal Studies Case Brief
100 %
Exemplary
4 pts
Accomplished

11. 3.4 pts
Developing
3 pts
Beginning
2.6 pts
Did not attempt
0 pts
Case Name & Case
Citation
5 % Complete identification
of case name and the parties
to the case.
Exemplary
Case name is correctly
stated and parties correctly
identified by name and by
their role in the litigation;
citation to the case itself is
complete and accurate and
comports with Bluebook
format.
Accomplished
Case name is present and
parties are identified;
citation to the case is
given; jurisdiction is
evident; errors are
minimal.

12. Developing
The Opinion can be located
based on the information
provided and the court
which rendered it can be
discerned, but elements of
the case name and/or
citation are missing.
Beginning
The Opinion cannot be
accurately identified based
on the information given
and/or the parties’ role in
the litigation cannot be
discerned.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Facts
10 % Key/relevant facts are
fully provided and easily
understandable.
Exemplary
All key/relevant facts are
provided; additional facts
provided only as necessary

13. for the reader to
understand the decision
and the court’s analysis;
facts are presented clearly
and concisely and without
error or confusion.
Accomplished
Most key/relevant facts are
provided; irrelevant facts
are omitted; statement of
facts is understandable to
the reader.
Developing
Important facts are missing
and/or unnecessary detail
is included; reader is
confused by the
presentation.
Beginning
Factual statement is
incomplete or erroneous,
rendering the brief
unusable to the reader, at
least in part.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.

14. Procedural Posture
10 % Demonstrated all
essential information dealing
with the history of the case.
Exemplary
All essential information
concerning the history of
the case (origin, sequence
of case events in various
courts, and current
posture) is included;
courts’ names,
jurisdictions, and actions
are provided and are
accurate.
Accomplished
The history of the case
(where it started and how
it came to this court) is
presented with minimal
errors in sequence or
process.
Developing
Gaps in the history of the
case or errors in case
sequence or case events
exist.
Beginning

15. Procedural history does not
enable the reader to
understand the history of
the case and/or how it
arrived in this court.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Issue
10 % Proper statement and
framing of the legal
question/s.
Exemplary
The legal question or
questions before this court
are correctly and succinctly
stated and the Issue if
framed in terms of a
question.
Accomplished
The legal question is
presented accurately, but
lacking in precision and/or
is not framed as a
question.
Developing

16. The legal issue is identified
as a general topic and/or is
stated in an overly broad
manner; precision is
lacking.
Beginning
The legal issue is
incorrectly stated.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Holding
5 % Full restatement of the
court's resolution.
Exemplary
The court’s resolution of
the legal issue is correctly
and succinctly stated and is
not confused with the
Judgment or procedural
disposition of the case;
Issue and Holding “match”.
Accomplished
The court’s resolution of
the legal issue is accurate

17. but is lacking in precision.
Developing
The court’s resolution of
the legal issue is overly
broad or is inaccurate in
some regard.
Beginning
The court’s resolution of
the legal issue is incorrectly
presented and/or the
Holding of a different court
is presented, thus
presenting an inaccurate
picture of this court’s
decision.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Judgment/Disposition
5 % Complete restatement
of the court's disposition.
Exemplary
The disposition of the case
and the relief, if any,
granted by the court is
accurately and clearly

18. stated.
Accomplished
The disposition of the case
is accurately stated, but
lacks precision.
Developing
The disposition of the case
can be discerned but is
unclear to the reader.
Beginning
The disposition of the case
is erroneously presented.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Rationale/Analysis
25 % Thorough explanation
of how the court reached its
holding.
Exemplary
The court’s reasoning,
analysis, and rationale are
presented in a complete,
succinct, and

19. understandable manner. All
relevant considerations are
included.
Accomplished
The court’s reasoning and
rationale are accurately
presented; some analytical
detail may be missing, but
there are no errors.
Developing
The court’s reasoning is
presented in only general
terms which are not
instructive to the reader.
Beginning
The court’s reasoning is
erroneously presented,
thereby misleading the
reader.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Dissent/Comment
/Significance/Impact

20. 10 % Identification and
presentation of additional
information that is needed to
present a complete picture
of the case.
Exemplary
The student made a correct
decision concerning
whether there is additional
information or commentary
which should be conveyed
to the reader, including
information about a
Dissenting opinion; the
information is conveyed in
a clear and accurate
manner. Impact on society,
if any, is conveyed.
Accomplished
The student correctly noted
the existence of a
Dissenting opinion, if any,
and accurately described it;
information/comments, if
any, relate to the opinion in
a logical manner.
Developing
The student noted a
Dissent and/or the
significance of the case but

21. described same in an
unclear manner.
Beginning
The student failed to
present necessary
information about a Dissent
or about the significance of
the case or presented same
in an inaccurate or
misleading manner.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Writing Standards
10 % Demonstrate the
correct usage of grammar,
spelling, and writing
techniques.
Exemplary
Student demonstrates
consistent and correct use
of the rules of grammar
usage, punctuation, and
spelling. Language is clear
and precise. Sentences
display consistently strong,
varied structure. Headings
are used and correspond to

22. the required elements of
the case brief.
Accomplished
Student demonstrates
consistent and correct use
of the rules of grammar
usage, punctuation and
spelling, with a few minor
errors. Headings are used
and correspond to the
required elements of the
case brief.
Developing
Paper contains several
grammatical, punctuation,
and/or spelling errors.
Language lacks clarity or
includes some use of
jargon and /or
conversational tone. Some
headings are missing or fail
to correspond to the
required elements of the
case brief.
Beginning
Paper contains numerous
grammatical, punctuation,
and spelling errors.
Language uses jargon or
conversational tone; OR

23. brief fails to use Headings.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.
Citation of Sources
10 % Proper usage of the
BlueBook citation style.
Exemplary
Student accurately quotes,
paraphrases, and cites
information in ways that
are true to the original
context with no errors.
Accomplished
Student quotes,
paraphrases and cites
information correctly and
consistently, using
information in ways that
are true to the original
context, with minimal
errors.
Developing
Student quotes,
paraphrases and cites
information mostly

24. correctly and consistently,
in ways that are largely
true to the original context.
Beginning
Student quotes,
paraphrases and cites
information but may have
many errors of use the
information out of context.
Did not attempt
The required element does
not exist in the brief or is
unrecognizable in the brief.