Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Feldman
Saenz v. Roe
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:
In 1992, the California legislature enacted a statute that limited the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents. The statute limited the amount payable to a family that has resided in California for less than one year to the amount payable by the state where the family had previously lived. The Plaintiffs successfully challenged the validity of the statute. The District Court concluded that the statute placed “a penalty” on residents choosing to move to California. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Relocation Act that authorizes any state that receives a block welfare grant to “apply to a family the rules of a welfare program of another state if the family has moved to the state from another state and has resided in the new state for less than one year.” The District Court concluded that the existence of the federal statute did not affect the legal analysis of its opinion. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- 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.