Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Barnett
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Citation:315 U.S. 568 (1942)
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 defendant was distributing materials promoting the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses. Bystanders complained to the City Marshal that the defendant was denouncing all other religions. The crowd became restless, and city officials became involved. The complaint alleged that the defendant told one of the city officials that they were a “damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The defendant alleged slightly different facts, including that he had urged the city officials to arrest the members of the public who were responsible for the disturbance, and in response one of the city officials cursed at the defendant. The defendant was convicted under a New Hampshire law that prohibited citizens from saying an “offensive, derisive, or annoying word” to another person in a public place, or to call another person by “any offensive or derisive name,” or “make any noise in [their] presence . . . with intent to deride, offend, or annoy him . . .”.
- 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.