Marijuana Law – Keyed to Mikos
California v. Spark
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:
Kern County Sheriff obtained an anonymous tip that there was marijuana growing in Zelma Spark’s trailer backyard. Two sheriff’s deputies went to the home and saw a marijuana plant in the backyard that was about six feet tall. The deputies knocked on the front door to contact Ms. Spark about the marijuana. Ms. Spark indicated that her son, Noel Spark, had permission to grow the plants. Thereafter, the deputies went into the backyard and found two more plants of marijuana. The deputies seized all three plants. The following day, Appellant contacted the police, told the police he had been staying there for a few days and not lived in San Bernardino County, and admitted that the plants seized from his mother’s house were his and he tried to keep the plants hidden. Also, Appellant admitted that he smoked approximately a half-ounce of marijuana per week for chronic back pain and he had a marijuana prescription from Dr. William Eidelman, who never reviewed Appellant’s medical records before making the recommendation. Undercover police officers went to see Dr. Eidelman to obtain a marijuana prescription and the officers realized that Dr. Eidelman would recommend the prescription for marijuana in exchange for $250. Likewise, Dr. Eidelman was found to be unlicensed to practice medicine at the time of trial. Moreover, Appellant also had Dr. David Bearman testify at his trial. Dr. Bearman reviewed Appellants medical history and evaluated his physical condition and determined he met the criteria for the recommendation because he suffered from chronic back pain.
- 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.