Confirm favorite deletion?
Family Law Keyed to Weisberg
State v. C.R. & C.R
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 1984 R.R., nearly 15, left his parents’ home and left with various relatives. In 1985, a petition was filed alleging that R.R. was a dependant child. The court found R.R. to be dependent within the meaning of the statute and temporarily awarded legal custody of R.R. to the Utah Department of Family Services (DFS). In 1986 the temporary order terminated and custody was awarded to R.R.’s parents, to be supervised by DFS. The State filed a petition against R.R.’s parents seeking reimbursement in support for R.R. expended during the period he was in DFS’s custody. The parents contested the petition based on the common law doctrine of emancipation and claimed their duty to support R.R. was terminated when he left their home to live elsewhere in a lifestyle of which they disapproved. The parents testified that they never ordered him to leave, but that he left because he refused to accept their condition that he give up his homosexual lifestyle. The State argued that R.R.’s parents had not met the burden of proving emancipation because there was no evidence that he was financially independent or that he could provide his own residence. The State also argued that he had not left voluntarily because his parents had forced him to leave the household.
- 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.