SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Family Law Keyed to Weisberg
Kirkpatrick v. District Court
Citation:
64 P.3d 1056 (Nev. 2003)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:
Karen Karay and Bruce Kirkpatrick have joint legal and physical custody of their daughter, SierraDawn. In 1992, Karay and SierraDawn moved from California to New Mexico. In December 2000, when SierraDawn was 15 years old, she informed her mother that she wanted to marry her 48 year old guitar teacher, Sauren Crow. Karay approved of the marriage, but SierraDawn was not permitted to marry under New Mexico law. Thus, SierraDawn, Karay, and Crow traveled to Las Vegas so that SierraDawn and Crow could marry under Nevada law, which permits a minor under age 16 to marry based on one parent’s consent and judicial authorization. Karay filed for a petition for judicial authorization for SierraDawn’s marriage, stating that she has “seen no other couple so right for each other,” that they “have very real life plans at home, in the town which we all reside,” and that “their partnership and their talents will be most effectively utilized by this marriage.” The court found good cause under Nevada law for this marriage and issued a license. Crow and SierraDawn then got married in Las Vegas. Kirkpatrick, SierraDawn’s father, learned of this marriage and filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to vacate its order authorizing SierraDawn’s marriage and to annul the marriage.
- 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.
5m 38s