Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Kaplan
United States v. Phillips
Citation:731 F.3d 649 (2013)
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:
Lacey Phillips and Erin Hall (defendants) were a couple who decided to purchase a home during the early 2000s housing bubble. After originally being turned down by Associated Bank for a mortgage loan, Phillips and Hall turned to Brian Bowling—a crooked broker—who referred them to the Fremont Investment & Loan (“Fremont”) for reconsideration. Fremont was a federally insured bank with dubious ethics. Specifically, Fremont would provide loans to borrowers without first verifying their statement of income. Bowling instructed the couple to list Phillips as the only applicant for the loan because of her good credit history. Bowling, however, also instructed the couple to still list both of their incomes on the application. The couple did so and were charged with bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1014. At trial, the judge forbade testimony about Bowling’s instructions to the couple.
- 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.