Also known as: precis · summary · abstract
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A concise summary of a text's essential points.
Pamela Phillips moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a) on her contract claim against Premier Manufacturing. She attached a précis of the correspondence and payment records showing no genuine dispute on the material facts. The court granted the motion after reviewing the précis and stating its reasons on the record.
Philip Powell faced charges for his online posts advocating protest tactics. His attorney submitted a précis of the statements to demonstrate they amounted only to abstract advocacy. The court dismissed the case because the précis confirmed the absence of any call for imminent lawless action.
Preston Pratt offered a précis of thousands of invoices to prove the content of the defendant's business records. The court admitted the précis under Rule 1006 after confirming the underlying documents were available for inspection. The jury relied on the précis to calculate damages.
Phuong Pham filed her summary judgment motion thirty days after discovery closed. She included a précis of the deposition transcripts to highlight the absence of disputed facts. The court considered the motion timely and granted it on the merits.
Pearl Porter attached affidavits to her Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and required the parties to submit a précis of the additional material. After review, the court granted judgment as a matter of law.
Phoebe Park moved to exclude the plaintiff's expert under Daubert standards. She filed a précis of the expert's methodology and supporting studies. The court used the précis to evaluate reliability and excluded the testimony.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View caseA précis contains the essential points of a text in concise form. It functions as an abstract that captures the core content without unnecessary detail.
A précis distills voluminous materials into a clear statement of undisputed facts. Courts rely on it to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist under Rule 56.
A précis may be admitted when offered to prove the content of voluminous writings that cannot be examined conveniently in court. The underlying materials must remain available for inspection.
…in the attack on the Texas criminal abortion statutes. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class, and Dr. Hallford, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, but that the Does had failed to allege facts…