Confirm favorite deletion?
Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Unites States v. Starks (Defendant)
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:
Starks (Defendant) was employed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in a federally funded research project counseling pregnant women about drug abuse treatment. Siegel (Defendant) was the president of a corporation that developed and operated drug addiction treatment programs. Siegel (Defendant) began giving Starks (Defendant) $250 for each patient she referred to his program. Starks (Defendant), Siegel (Defendant,) and others were convicted by a federal grand jury of conspiring against the United States (Plaintiff) for offering to pay compensation for referral of Medicare patients and for soliciting and receiving such referral payments. Starks (Defendant) appealed, claiming that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that, because of the antikickback statute's mens rea requirement, Starks (Defendant) had to have known that the referral arrangement violated the antikickback statute in order to be convicted, and because the Social Security Act's prohibition on paid referrals, when considered together with the Act's safe harbor provision, was unconstitutionally vague.
- 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.