Also known as: synopses · summary
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A brief editorial summary of a judicial opinion's holding that appears at the beginning of the case report in a reporter series. The synopsis is prepared by the publisher rather than the court and supplies an overview of the outcome without constituting binding precedent.
Sean sued Global Cargo alleging misclassification as an independent contractor. Global Cargo moved for summary judgment. The court first consulted the synopsis at the head of a controlling precedent in the reporter to understand the holding before examining the full opinion and the GPS logs.
River Therapeutics produced thousands of lab notebooks in a misappropriation suit. Peak Life Sciences cited a recent precedent. The court checked the synopsis at the front of that reported decision to grasp the outcome before reviewing the full text and the notebooks.
After discovery closed, Global Cargo filed its summary judgment motion. The court first read the synopsis of a key precedent in the reporter to confirm the holding's scope and then compared the full opinion against the post-trip driver reports.
Lang moved to dismiss the fair-housing complaint. The court examined the synopsis of a leading precedent attached to the opposition papers, converted the motion to one for summary judgment, and allowed Radiant Roots to respond with additional evidence.
Same-sex couples challenged state marriage bans. The court reviewed the synopsis of a controlling precedent in the reporter before analyzing the full opinion and the legislative history to decide the due-process and equal-protection claims.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseA developer challenged a zoning decision that blocked affordable housing. The court read the synopsis of a key precedent in the reporter to understand the holding, then examined the full opinion and the village board minutes for evidence of discriminatory purpose.
In 1971 Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation applied to the Village of Arlington Heights, Illinois, for rezoning of a 15-acre parcel from single-family to multiple-family classification. Using federal financial assistance under section 236 of the National Housing Act, MHDC planned to build 190 clustered townhouse units for low- and moderate-income tenants. The Village denied the rezoning request. MHDC, joined by other plaintiffs, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago located about 26 miles northwest of the downtown Loop. Most land in the Village is zoned for detached single-family homes. The Clerics of St. Viator own an 80-acre parcel just east of the center of Arlington Heights that includes a high school, a novitiate building, and vacant land. Since 1959 all land surrounding the Viatorian property has been zoned R-3 for single-family use with relatively small minimum lot-size requirements. In 1970 MHDC entered into a 99-year lease and accompanying agreement of sale covering a 15-acre site in the southeast corner of the Viatorian property. The agreement set a bargain purchase price of $300,000 with the sale contingent upon securing zoning clearances and section 236 housing assistance. MHDC's plans for the Lincoln Green project called for 20 two-story buildings containing 190 units with a mix of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom configurations and a large portion of the site left open. The development did not conform to the Village zoning ordinance and required rezoning to the R-5 multiple-family classification. MHDC filed a petition for rezoning with the Village Plan Commission accompanied by supporting materials that included an affirmative marketing plan designed to assure racial integration. MHDC consulted with Village staff and incorporated every recommended change into the plans. During the spring of 1971 the Plan Commission considered the proposal at three public meetings that drew large crowds. Opponents focused on the zoning aspects. They argued that the area had always been single-family. They also argued that the buffer policy adopted in 1962 called for R-5 zoning primarily to serve as a buffer between single-family development and commercial or manufacturing districts. At the close of the third meeting the Plan Commission recommended denial. On September 28, 1971, the Village Board denied the rezoning by a 6-1 vote. In June 1972 MHDC and three Black individuals filed suit against the Village. A second nonprofit corporation and an individual of Mexican-American descent intervened. After a bench trial the District Court entered judgment for the Village in 1974. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in 1975. The Supreme Court granted the Village's petition for certiorari in 1975.
View caseNo. The synopsis is prepared by the publisher, not the court, and therefore lacks authoritative force. A student must read and cite the actual opinion text rather than the synopsis or headnotes.
A synopsis provides a short overview of the case holding. Headnotes are numbered editorial abstracts that address specific legal issues, sometimes including dicta. Neither is prepared by the court.
No. Because the synopsis is created by the publisher's editors rather than the court, it has no binding or persuasive authority and cannot be cited as precedent.
…in the attack on the Texas criminal abortion statutes. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class, and Dr. Hallford, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, but that the Does had failed to allege facts…