Confirm favorite deletion?
Evidence keyed to Fisher
Ohio v. Clark
Citation:135 S.Ct. 2173 (2015)
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:
Clark (defendant) was indicted on five counts of felonious assault and two counts of child endangerment and domestic violence. Clark’s partner’s two children L.P. and A.T. sustained injuries while under Clark’s care. L.P.’s preschool teachers asked L.P. about blood in his eye and red marks on his face, he mentioned “Dee,” which was Clark’s nickname. L.P.’s teachers called the state-run hotline for reporting suspected child abuse, as required by Ohio’s mandatory reporting law. The next day, a social worker took L.P. and A.T. to the hospital. When questioned by the social workers, a police detective, and their grandmother and great aunt, L.P. told them Clark caused their injuries.
The trial court held that L.P. was incompetent to testify, but it allowed L.P.’s out-of-court statements implicating Clark to be admitted pursuant to Ohio Rule of Evidence 807(A).
- 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.