Family Law Keyed to Weisberg
Simeone v. Simeone
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, Catherine Walsh Simeone, and appellee, Fredrick Simeone were married in 1975. At the time of the marriage appellee was a thirty-nine year old neurosurgeon with an approximate income of $90,000 a year. Appellant was a twenty-three year old unemployed nurse. On the eve of the wedding, appellee’s attorney presented appellant with a prenuptial agreement. Appellant signed the agreement without the assistance of counsel, and without any advice regarding the rights the agreement surrendered. The agreement limited appellant to support payments of $200 per week, with a maximum total payment of $25,000. The parties separated and appellee made payments satisfying the $25,000 limit. During divorce proceedings appellant filed a claim for alimony during the litigation. The Supreme Court affirmed a denial of her claim, finding that precedent permitted a prenuptial agreement if it either made a reasonable provision for the spouse or was entered into after full and fair disc losure of the financial positions of the parties and the statutory rights being relinquished. Appellant claims the Supreme Court’s interpretation is in error by requiring disclosure of statutory rights only when the provision made for the spouse is unreasonable. Appellant also claims the payments provided where unreasonable. The prenuptial agreement stated that alimony pendente lite (pending litigation) was relinquished. Appellant claims she was inadequately informed with respect to the nature of alimony pendente lite.
- 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.