Research the following case: Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134
ID: 397340 • Letter: R
Question
Research the following case: Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1976) Submit a case brief using the following IRAC format:Facts: Detail what happened in your own words. Issue: What is the legal question to be answered before the court? Holding: The answer to the question Rule of Law: What does the law state? Analysis: Explain why the court ruled the way it did. Conclusion: Tie it all together
You will be graded on spelling, grammar, content, organization, and formatting. Research the following case: Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1976) Submit a case brief using the following IRAC format:
Facts: Detail what happened in your own words. Issue: What is the legal question to be answered before the court? Holding: The answer to the question Rule of Law: What does the law state? Analysis: Explain why the court ruled the way it did. Conclusion: Tie it all together
You will be graded on spelling, grammar, content, organization, and formatting. Research the following case: Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1976) Submit a case brief using the following IRAC format:
Facts: Detail what happened in your own words. Issue: What is the legal question to be answered before the court? Holding: The answer to the question Rule of Law: What does the law state? Analysis: Explain why the court ruled the way it did. Conclusion: Tie it all together
You will be graded on spelling, grammar, content, organization, and formatting.
Explanation / Answer
IRAC or issue, rule, application and conclusion is a format used for summarizing legal cases for easy analysis.
The case: Marvin Vs Marvin
Use the case details in the following script to right the4 asects of the rule in your own words.
The Marvin's were living out of wedlock for 7 years, during which time they purchased properties , but said properties were in taken in the name of the defendant. But there was an oral agreement between them that they would share the proceeds. Michelle had become a housemaker giving up all her career of a singer and an entertainer on the behest of Lee and in return was ensured a good living standard by Lee. But the live in relationship broke up with Michelle getting support for one year after which Lee refused to support her. She filed a case that she wanted half her share of all the properties and her support entitlement even though the agreement were oral.
The law until this case stated that a verbal agreement within a marraige is justified and needs to be upheld. After this case the court realised that a live in relationship of a long term nature also falls under the same premise and any verbal agreements both expressed and implied have to be upheld by the court. The court ruled for the defendant