Marijuana Law – Keyed to Mikos
Ervin v. Virginia
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:
On February 29, 2008, at 8:20pm, Officer O’Brien and Rad stopped Appellant for a traffic violation. As the officers approached the vehicle, the officers smelled “a strong odor of marijuana” through the cars open windows. Appellant was the sole occupant in the vehicle, and he did not do any discrete movements while the officers approached. Initially, the officers requested Appellants driver’s licenses and vehicle registration, but Appellant solely provide the officers with his licenses. Both officers searched the vehicle, took Appellants keys, opened the glove compartment with the key, and found the two bags of marijuana in the glove compartment, one with ten baggies and another with thirteen baggies, and the vehicle registration. The vehicle belonged to Appellants daughter mother, Tiffany Killabrew, who would regularly loan the care to various people, including Appellant. Ms. Killabrew testified that she loaned the vehicle to Appellant on February 29, 2008, sometime between 6:00pm and 7:00pm. Appellant denied ownership of the marijuana and claimed he was not familiar with the smell of it. The trial court found that the marijuana was subject to his dominion and control.
- 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.