Confirm favorite deletion?
Constitutional Law Keyed to Chemerinsky
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
Citation:533 U.S. 606 (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:
The petitioner, in the efforts to develop his property, filed an application to Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (Council) requesting permission to build a private beach club along the shore of Winnapaug Pond and to fill the entire marsh land area. The Council rejected the application, noting that the beach plan would conflict with the regulatory standard for a special exception and that to get a special exception, the plan must serve a “compelling public purpose which provides benefits to the public as a whole.” The petitioner appealed the decision to the Rhode Islands courts. The Council’s decision was affirmed. The petitioner filed an inverse condemnation action in Rhode Island Superior Court, asserting that the State’s wetland regulations had taken the property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
- 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.