Family Law Keyed to Weisberg
Bennington v. Bennington
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:
Plaintiff, Mary Bennington, and defendant, Larry Bennington, were married in 1946, with no children born to the marriage. In 1963, plaintiff suffered a stroke rendering her permanently and totally disabled. There were no sexual relations since that time. In 1974 defendant moved out of the house into a travel van located adjacent to the house. He did so because his wife kept the heat in the house at about 85 to 90 degrees and she locked and bolted the door to the house, taking fifteen to twenty minutes to come to the door to let him in after work. There were other areas of conflict, but no intention on the part of defendant to abandon his marital responsibilities during this move. He continued to help with household chores and entered the house regularly to assist his wife. On November 26, 1976, defendant became thoroughly disenfranchised and moved to Arizona for about one month. He returned, but lived off of the premises in the van for three months before getting his o wn apartment. Plaintiff commenced an action for alimony only, claiming gross neglect of duty and abandonment. Defendant denied grounds for alimony and counterclaimed for divorce alleging as amended living separate and apart for at least two years without cohabitation.
- 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.