Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Ann Marie N. v. City and County of San Francisco

Court of Appeal of California
2001 WL 1261958 (2001)


Facts

Ann Marie N. (plaintiff) filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco (the city) (defendant) after discovering that Mathew N., the child she had adopted through the city’s department of social services, was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Mathew’s natural mother routinely used cocaine and alcohol and engaged in prostitution. After his mother’s custody and parental rights were terminated, Mathew was placed with Ann Marie, who was aware that Mathew had been exposed to cocaine and alcohol during birth. Shortly after the placement, Ann Marie took Mathew to a pediatrician, who did not test Mathew for HIV but would have done so if Ann Marie had known that Mathew’s mother was engaged in conduct that might have exposed her to HIV. Six years later, a social worker for the city informed Ann Marie that Mathew’s birth mother had died of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Mathew subsequently tested positive for HIV. At trial, Ann Marie alleged that the city was liable for negligence in breaching a duty owed to Ann Marie as a prospective parent to identify and test children at high risk for exposure to HIV and convey the results to prospective parents. Ann Marie also claimed the city had intentionally misrepresented Mathew’s health, as Mathew was in fact infected with HIV. Finally, Ann Marie alleged that the city had knowledge of Mathew’s medical condition and intentionally concealed the condition. The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims for negligence and intentional misrepresentation. During a hearing on the intentional-concealment claim, a social worker for the city testified to being aware that Mathew’s natural mother had engaged in behavior that could have exposed her to HIV. The trial court granted the city’s motion for nonsuit. Ann Marie appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kay, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.