Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Civil Procedure Keyed to Babcock

View this case in different Casebooks

Civil Procedure Keyed to Cound Civil Procedure Keyed to Friedenthal Civil Procedure Keyed to Marcus Civil Procedure Keyed to Glannon Civil Procedure Keyed to Hazard Civil Procedure Keyed to Spencer Civil Procedure Keyed to Counsellor, 3rd Ed.

Mas v. Perry

Citation:

489 F. 2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Plaintiff Mas’s meet in Louisiana and get married at the wife’s family’s home in Mississippi. They return to Louisiana and rent an apartment from Defendant Perry. Defendant Perry installed see-through mirrors to allow him to watch Plaintiffs without being seen. The Defendant Perry’s invasion of privacy occurred for 3 months until Plaintiff Mas’s found out and moved out. Plaintiffs filed suit in Louisiana District Court for $100,000. While the case made its way through the court system Plaintiff Mas’s moved to Illinois. The Plaintiffs won in District Court and were awarded $15,000 for the wife and $5,000 for the husband.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.
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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - In light of Mas v. Perry and subsequent federal decisions, which of the following best encapsulates the legal standard for determining an individual’s change of domicile for diversity purposes, particularly where competing evidence of intent exists, and how does this interact with the constitutional constraints on federal subject matter jurisdiction?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Courts must resolve all doubts in favor of the original domicile and disregard subjective statements if contradicted by objective conduct.

Incorrect. A is incorrect: Courts weigh all evidence, not just resolve doubts in favor of the original domicile, and consider both subjective and objective indicia.

(B) The party asserting a change in domicile bears the burden of proving both physical presence and clear, unequivocal intent to remain; ambiguous or conflicting evidence is insufficient, and this demanding standard safeguards the integrity of Article III limitations on federal jurisdiction.

Correct! The burden is on the party asserting a change of domicile to demonstrate both physical presence and unequivocal intent to remain; ambiguous or contradictory evidence is insufficient, preserving strict Article III constraints on federal court jurisdiction and preventing manipulative forum shopping.

(C) If a party physically relocates and establishes habitual residence in a new state, federal courts presume change of domicile unless the opposing party demonstrates intent to retain the former domicile.

Incorrect. C is incorrect: There is no presumption of changed domicile from habitual residence; intent must be established by the party asserting change.

(D) For purposes of federal jurisdiction, intent is immaterial if the individual has resided in the new state for over a year and has relinquished tangible connections to the former state.

Incorrect. D is incorrect: Length of residence or relinquishment of tangible connections is insufficient without specific, proven intent.

Q.2 - Suppose in a variant of Mas v. Perry, Judy Mas spent summers in Mississippi, maintained a Mississippi bank account, but otherwise lived and worked full-time in Louisiana for over three years, consistently declaring herself a Mississippi domiciliary on federal forms. Under the controlling doctrine, which factor would most likely be dispositive for domicile—and why?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Her summer visits to Mississippi, which suggest ongoing ties and possible intent to return.

Incorrect. A is incorrect: Occasional visits are not dispositive if the center of life is elsewhere.

(B) Her full-time employment and long-term physical presence in Louisiana, which outweigh intermittent connections elsewhere.

Incorrect. B is incorrect: Full-time presence and employment are significant but not dispositive in the face of repeated, credible contrary declarations.

(C) Her consistent self-identification as a Mississippi domiciliary on federal forms, which is conclusive absent contrary evidence.

Correct! Self-identification on federal forms is persuasive evidence but is not conclusive if contradicted by objective conduct; in this scenario, absent contrary evidence, such declarations would carry substantial weight in determining intent and thus domicile.

(D) The existence of a Mississippi bank account, since financial ties are determinative under federal law.

Incorrect. D is incorrect: A bank account alone does not control domicile for federal purposes.

Q.3 - Which of the following advanced policy arguments best explains why the Fifth Circuit in Mas v. Perry rejected the automatic imputation of a wife’s domicile to that of her husband for diversity purposes, even where state law might differ, and how does this choice reinforce federal judicial administration?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Because Congress expressly intended for federal courts to apply only uniform state rules to questions of status in diversity cases, maximizing deference to local law.

Incorrect. A is incorrect: Congress did not mandate exclusive application of state status rules in diversity cases.

(B) Because federal diversity doctrine, rooted in Erie and constitutional federalism, requires independent federal standards to prevent state policies from subverting the Article III “complete diversity” requirement.

Incorrect. B is incorrect: Erie concerns do not displace the need for an independent federal test in the diversity context.

(C) Because automatic imputation would violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state’s marital rules to override another’s citizenship determinations.

Incorrect. C is incorrect: The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not the basis for federal domicile doctrine in diversity.

(D) Because federal judicial economy is maximized by requiring a case-by-case inquiry into the individual intent and presence of each party, ensuring precise alignment with constitutional subject matter limitations.

Correct! The policy rationale is to reinforce federal judicial administration by requiring individualized analysis of intent and presence for each party, thus ensuring adherence to Article III’s jurisdictional requirements and preventing jurisdictional manipulation via marital status.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Brittany L. Raposa

ProfessorBrittany L. Raposa

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Mas v. Perry

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Videos

Mas v. Perry

8m 29s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Mas v. Perry

1m 41s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Mas v. Perry