Family Law Keyed to Weisberg
Michael v. Michael
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:
Appellant, husband, and respondent, wife, were married in 1972 and separated in 1987. In 1972 the parties moved to Arkansas were respondent was going to work for Southwestern Bell Corp. and appellant worked as a reporter for a local newspaper. Respondent received a promotion and moved to St. Louis, where appellant eventually was fired from Maritz, Inc. The couple agreed he would not seek outside employment, devoting his time to writing fiction. Respondent received another promotion and the parties moved to Oklahoma City, where appellant continued to pursue a writing career. He later abandoned his effort without having written a chapter. He then worked briefly in a food store and spent 8-9 months working in free-lance public relations. When not employed, the couple agreed appellant would be responsible for the general upkeep of the house and preparation of dinner. He spent several hours per day preparing the meal, but respondent claimed that his other domestic chores we re very lax. In the two years the couple lived in Oklahoma City, he drove respondent to work. In 1984 respondent was transferred to St. Louis, where appellant continued to cook dinner and periodically took respondent to work. At the time of trial respondent was earning over $70,000 per year with appellant receiving $75 per month in interest.
- 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.