Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Brady v. Hopper

751 F.2d 329 (1984)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,800+ case briefs...

Brady v. Hopper

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

751 F.2d 329 (1984)

Facts

James Brady, Timothy McCarthy, and Thomas Delahanty (collectively, the gunshot victims) (plaintiffs) were shot and seriously injured by John Hinckley, Jr., during his attempted assassination of President Reagan. Dr. John Hopper, Jr. (defendant), a psychiatrist, had treated Hinckley on an outpatient basis for five months before the assassination attempt. The gunshot victims sued Hopper for negligence. However, the gunshot victims did not allege in the complaint that Hinckley made any threats regarding President Reagan or that Hinckley ever threatened anyone. At most, the gunshot victims’ complaint stated that a more careful interview of Hinckley would have revealed that Hinckley was obsessed with Jodie Foster and the movie Taxi Driver, that he collected material on President Ronald Reagan and assassination, and that he practiced shooting guns. According to the gunshot victims, Hopper should have learned through his interviews with Hinckley that Hinckley suffered from delusions and severe mental illness, as opposed to being merely maladjusted. The district court found that even if the facts and conclusions in the gunshot victims’ complaint were taken as true, they would not be sufficient to create a legal duty for Hopper to protect the gunshot victims from the specific harm by Hinckley. The district court concluded that Hopper did not owe a duty to the gunshot victims absent allegations that, in the foreseeability context, Hinckley had conveyed to Hopper specific threats against specific victims (i.e., the gunshot victims themselves). The court found that there was no relationship between Hopper and the gunshot victims that created any legal obligation from Hopper to the gunshot victims. The district court granted Hopper’s motion to dismiss for the gunshot victims’ failure to state a claim. The gunshot victims appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barret, J.)

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 540,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,800 briefs, keyed to 983 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,800 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership