Confirm favorite deletion?
Marijuana Law – Keyed to Mikos
Safe Streets Alliance v. Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC
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:
Defendant, Alternative Holistic Hearing LLC, doing business as Rocky Mountain Organic, operates a recreational marijuana cultivation facility and retail shop. Joseph R. Licata, Defendant, and Jason M. Licata, Defendant, each have fifty percent interest in Alternative Holistic Hearing, LLC. Parker Walton, Defendant, is the sole member, manager, and owner of Defendant, 6480 Pickney, LLC, which is the owner of the marijuana cultivation at 648 Pickney Road. All Defendants, together, are an enterprise for the purpose of marijuana cultivation, and all Defendant’s make decisions collectively. Plaintiffs, Philly Windy Hope Reily and Michael P. Reilly own property adjacent to 6480 Pickney Road. Plaintiffs allege that the marijuana cultivate has create an extremely odorous and noisy environment. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that the marijuana cultivation has decrease their property’s value and decreased their enjoyment of their property. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants, collectively, have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) because their activities have proximately cause them damage.
- 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.