Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to French
Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Comm’n
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:
Evelyn Smith (Plaintiff) owns and rents out several apartments. Due to her religious belief that sex outside marriage is sinful, she refuses to rent her apartments to unmarried couples. Gail Randall and Kenneth Phillips, an unmarried couple, leased an apartment from Plaintiff after telling her that they were married. Before occupying the apartment, Phillips told Plaintiff that they were unmarried. She then refused to rent the apartment to them and returned their deposit. Randall and Phillips filed complaints against Plaintiff with the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Defendant), claiming that she had violated California statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status by owners of housing accommodations. The Commission determined that Plaintiff had violated the law, and Plaintiff sought judicial review. She claimed that she discriminated against the couple because of their extramarital sexual intercourse and not because of their marital status. She also claimed that the anti-discrimination law violated her state and federal constitutional rights to free exercise of religion. The California Court of Appeal reversed the Commission’s decision, and the state supreme court granted review.
- 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.