Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
State v. Shack
Citation:277 A.2d 369 (1971).
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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:
Tejeras (the defendant) is a field worker for a nonprofit corporation funded by an act of Congress, and Shack (the other defendant) is an attorney for a different nonprofit corporation also funded by an act of Congress. Both of the nonprofit corporations were founded to aid migrant workers. Tejeras wanted to go to Tedesco’s (the complainant) farm to provide medical aid to one of Tedesco’s migrant workers, and Shack wanted to go to Tedesco’s farm to discuss a legal problem with another one of the migrant workers. The two defendants went to the farm together, but before they reached the migrant workers’ living quarters, they were stopped and questioned as to their purpose by Tedesco. After the defendants stated their purposes for visiting the farm, Tedesco offered to find the migrant workers but stated that any medical treatment or discussion would have to occur in his offices and in his presence. The defendants insisted that they were permitted to see the migrant workers in their housing without Tedesco’s supervision. Tedesco then made a written complaint, and a state trooper removed the defendants.
- 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.