Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Barnett
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Citation:60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
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:
Plaintiff Dred Scott and his wife Harriet were enslaved by Irene Emerson in Missouri. The Scotts attempted to buy their freedom from Irene Emerson, but she refused. Dred Scott sued her in Missouri State Court, arguing that he and his family were free because they had been taken to a territory where slavery had been prohibited pursuant to the Missouri Compromise. The Scotts prevailed, but were still owed back wages from Irene Emerson. Irene remarried John Sanford, and Sanford refused to pay back Scott’s wages (on behalf of Irene). On appeal, the state supreme court held in favor of Sanford.
Plaintiff Scott filed another lawsuit against Sanford in federal court, claiming damages for Sanford’s physical abuse of him. According to diversity jurisdiction, if Plaintiff Scott was a free citizen he could sue Sanford in federal court (because Sanford was a citizen of a different state, New York).
- 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.