Seigel v. Long Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Defendant touched plaintiff’s forehead and pushed his hat back, believing plaintiff scared his horses. Court held this constituted assault and battery, regardless of mistaken identity or lack of intent to injure, entitling plaintiff to nominal damages.
Legal Significance: Establishes that in civil assault and battery, an intent to injure is not a necessary element; any unconsented touching done in rudeness or anger suffices.
Seigel v. Long Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Seigel, sued the defendant, Long, for assault and battery. The defendant admitted to approaching the plaintiff, who was in an automobile, and placing his left hand on the plaintiff’s forehead, pushing his hat back. The defendant stated he did this to see the plaintiff’s face and identify him, as he believed the plaintiff was the individual who had recently scared his horses, causing them to run away and damage his rake. The defendant acknowledged he was “provoked” and “angry” at the person who frightened his team at the time he touched the plaintiff (b101-6). He subsequently told the plaintiff that if he was not the person who scared the team, he owed an apology. The defendant contended he did not intend to injure the plaintiff unless he was indeed the one who had frightened his team. The plaintiff’s evidence described a more insolent and rude assault.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendant’s act of placing his hand on the plaintiff’s forehead and pushing back his hat constitute an actionable assault and battery, even if committed due to mistaken identity and without a specific intent to cause physical injury?
Yes, the defendant’s actions constituted an assault and battery. The defendant’s admission Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo cons
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the defendant’s act of placing his hand on the plaintiff’s forehead and pushing back his hat constitute an actionable assault and battery, even if committed due to mistaken identity and without a specific intent to cause physical injury?
Conclusion
This case firmly establishes that in Alabama civil law, any unconsented touching Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
Any touching by one person of the person of another in rudeness Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderi
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the defendant's own testimony established a prima facie Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa q
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Defendant’s admission of touching plaintiff’s head in anger, even if due