Confirm favorite deletion?
Family Law Keyed to Weisberg
State Ex Rel. Mahony v. St. John
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 1985 Sheree Mahoney was born in Casper, Wyoming to Sherrill Mahoney and Benjamin St. John, III (appellee). Appellee verbally acknowledged fatherhood of Sheree. In 1986 Sherrill and Sheree relocated to Washington. In 1992 Sherrill brought a paternity action against appellee, who continued to reside in Casper, in the State of Washington. Appellee summoned Sherrill back to Casper, where the two were married in 1993. The couple and their daughter returned to Washington, but nine months later the two separated with appellee returning to Casper. Sherrill filed a petition for divorce in Washington, achieving personal service upon appellee in Washington. Appellee chose to default and judgment was entered against him for child support arrearages. When Washington moved to enforce the obligation pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) appellee contested Washington’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a Wyoming resident. The Wyoming court held that the Washington order was invalid because appellee had not been personally served within the boundries of Whashington based on its view that service within the state’s boundaries is a requisite to an exercise of in personam jurisdiction in a Wyoming court. The State of Washington appealed.
- 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.