Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Fabritz v. Traurig

583 F.2d 697 (1978)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...

Fabritz v. Traurig

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

583 F.2d 697 (1978)

Facts

Virginia Fabritz (defendant) resided with her three-year-old daughter, Windy, in the home of Thomas L. Crockett and Ann Crockett. Fabritz left Windy in the Crockett’s care in order to attend a funeral. Upon her return three days later, Fabritz noticed Windy looked unwell. Windy had bruises on her body and was suffering with cramps. Assuming Windy was suffering from the flu, Fabritz bathed Windy and put her to bed. Later that afternoon, Windy started to vomit and show she was not feeling well. Fabritz gave Windy soda to settle her stomach, more fluids, and put her back to bed. When Ann arrived home later that evening, Fabritz and Ann decided it was time to obtain professional help. Ann called the hospital and was told that the women should bring Windy in for examination. Thereafter, Ann entered Windy’s room and realized she was not breathing. While Fabritz performed mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, Ann called for an ambulance. Windy was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. The medical opinion was that some 18 to 24 hours before Windy’s death—during Fabritz’s absence—Windy had been struck in the abdomen by a blunt instrument, which ruptured the abdomen and led to her death. At her trial, the prosecution concluded that Fabritz had not struck her daughter. The trial court convicted Fabritz for child abuse, concluding that her failure to obtain medical attention constituted cruel or inhumane treatment, which ultimately led to Windy’s death. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Fabritz petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bryan, 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 557,000 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 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 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 557,000 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
  • 31,100 briefs - keyed to 984 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