Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to French
State v. Shack
Citation:277 A.2d 369 (1971)
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
The plaintiffs, Terejas and Shack, were employed by SCOPE, a non-profit corporation funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity pursuant to an act of Congress, and Camden Regional Legal Services, another non-profit corporation funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity pursuant to an act of Congress. Terejas’s job was to provide health services to migrant farmworkers, and Shack’s job was to provide legal advice and representation to migrant farmworkers. The defendant, Mr. Tedesco, was a farmer who employed migrant farmworkers, and, as part of their employment, housed them on his land. The plaintiffs and the defendant had developed differences prior to the events of the case. When the plaintiffs arrived together at Mr. Tedesco’s land to see the migrant farmworkers, Mr. Tedesco inquired of their purpose. The plaintiffs informed the defendant that they were each there to see a different migrant farmworker, and the defendant offered to locate both of the men they were looking for. However, the defendant insisted that any legal consultation between Shack and the migrant farmworker must take place in the defendant’s office, in the defendant’s presence. The plaintiffs both declined the defendants offer, informing the defendant that they had a right to see the migrant farmworkers in their living quarters without the defendant’s supervision. The defendant then summoned a State Trooper, and executed a formal complaint charging both plaintiffs with trespass. Lawsuits ensued.
- 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.