Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Rotunda
Hill v. Stone
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:
Texas law authorized a municipal bond election procedure that distinguished between voters registering property for taxation and voters not registering property. The law provided that a bond issue would pass only in the event that it was approved by both a majority of participants casting votes as registrants of property and the combined majority of all voters. The city of Fort Worth (Defendant) held a bond election for the purpose of authorizing debt to construct a public library. The bond issuance was approved by the combined majority of voters, but did not receive approval from the majority of participants voting as registrants of property. Because the proposed bond issuance did not receive majority approval from both categories of voters, Defendant regarded the election results as a denial of authority for bond issuance. A group of individuals voting as non-registrants (Plaintiffs) sued in the federal district court asserting that the bond election procedure afforded an unconstitutional preference to registrants of taxable property in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
- 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.