Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Barnett
Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly
Citation:533 U.S. 525 (2001)
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:
In 1999, Massachusetts issued regulations governing advertising and sale of tobacco products. The regulations included a prohibition on advertising of smokeless tobacco or cigars within a 1,000 foot radius of a school or playground, as well as restrictions on the location and distribution of tobacco products, including a ban on indoor advertisements of tobacco products placed lower than five feet from the floor, and requirement that tobacco products be placed out of reach of the consumer. Petitioners, who were Cigarette and Tobacco Manufacturers, claimed that the regulations violated their First Amendment rights.
Massachusetts argued that the regulations did not burden more speech than necessary. The Petitioner tobacco manufacturers disagreed, arguing that even though the State had identified a problem with underage cigarette use, the State had not identified a similar problem with underage use of smokeless tobacco and cigars.
- 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.