Conflicts Keyed to Currie
Janet Miller-Jenkins v. Lisa Miller-Jenkins
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Lisa (Plaintiff) and Janet (Defendant) lived in Virginia originally. They traveled to Vermont in 2000 and entered into a valid civil union according to the laws of Vermont. Plaintiff received artificial insemination in 2001 and gave birth in April 2002. The parties moved to Vermont four months later and lived there for a little over one year. In September 2003, they separated and Plaintiff moved back to Virginia with the minor child, which was given the designation of IMJ by the court. Plaintiff filed for a dissolution of the civil union in Vermont in November 2003. In the complaint, Lisa (Plaintiff) listed IMJ as the “biological or adoptive” child of the civil union. The family court issued a temporary order awarding Plaintiff temporary legal and physical responsibility of IMJ and awarded visitation rights to Janet (Defendant). Plaintiff did not allow visitation by Defendant and filed a petition in Virginia instead to establish IMJ’s parentage. The Virginia family court found Defendant had no parental rights on grounds Vermont’s civil unions laws were not valid under Virginia law. The Vermont family court refused to give full faith and credit to the Virginia family court’s decision regarding Janet’s (Defendant) lack of parental rights. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Defendant appealed in Virginia on the grounds the Virginia family court failed to recognize that the PKPA bars jurisdiction in Virginia.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.