Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Cohen
Shelley v. Kraemer
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
This case joins together two cases, one from the Supreme Court of Missouri, and another from the Supreme Court of Michigan. In the first case, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, involves an agreement made on February 16, 1911. In this agreement, thirty out of a total of thirty-nine property owners fronting both sides of a street in the city of St. Louis signed an agreement that for the next fifty years none of the property on involved in this agreement should be inhabited by a member any race other than Caucasian. On August 11, 1945, pursuant to a contract of sale, Petitioners who are African-American, for valuable consideration received from one Fitzgerald, a warranty deed to the parcel in question. The trial court found that Petitioners had no knowledge of the restrictive government at the time of purchase. On October 9, 1945, Respondents, as owners of other property subject to the terms of the restrictive covenant brought suit in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis to restrain Petitioners from taking possession of the property. The trial court denied the requested relief on the groun d that the restrictive agreement never became final and complete. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and directed the trail court to grant the relief sought by the Respondents. The second trial court held the agreement effective and concluded that the enforcements of the provisions of the agreement violated no rights guaranteed to the Petitioners by the Federal Constitution. The second case, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Michigan, is materially similar to the Missouri case. Petitioners in both cases believe that judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases violated rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Acts of Congress passed pursuant to that Amendment. They specifically allege they have been denied equal protection of the laws, deprived property without due process and denied privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.
- 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.