Young v. City of Providence ex rel. Napolitano

404 F.3d 33 (2005)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Young v. City of Providence ex rel. Napolitano

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
404 F.3d 33 (2005)

Facts

Mrs. Young (plaintiff) brought a § 1983 suit against the City of Providence (defendant) for the accidental shooting death of her son by two Providence police officers. She was represented by three attorneys: Barry Scheck and Nicholas Brustin, New York attorneys who were admitted to practice in Rhode Island pro hac vice; and Robert Mann, who was a Providence attorney and acted as local counsel. Before trial, the parties had a disagreement regarding the accuracy of a diagram that Young’s attorneys planned to use in their opening statement. The trial judge instructed the parties that if they could not come to a stipulation regarding the diagram, then it could not be used at trial. Before opening statements began, Young’s attorneys agreed to the City’s stipulation that part of the diagram was inaccurate. As the trial wore on, Young’s attorneys became convinced that the diagram was incorrect, and a young associate at Scheck’s firm was asked to draft a memorandum requesting the judge to release Young from the stipulation. The memorandum was filed with the judge. After reading the memorandum, the judge indicated that she was disturbed by the allegations made in the document, particularly the allegation that the court had required Young to agree to the City’s stipulation, which she regarded as a misrepresentation. Although Young’s attorneys attempted to apologize and to explain to the trial judge that they had not intended to imply that she had required them to accept the stipulation, she did not accept this explanation. She stripped Scheck and Brustin of their pro hac vice admissions and censured them for Rule 11 violations. She found that Mann had also violated Rule 11, but she did not censure him. The three attorneys appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boudin, C.J.)

Dissent (Kennedy, 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 742,000 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 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 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 742,000 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
  • 45,900 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