Connection lost
Server error
ADICKES v. KRESS & CO. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A white teacher was denied service at a lunch counter while with Black students and then arrested. The Supreme Court reversed summary judgment, holding the store failed to disprove a conspiracy with police, and clarified the “state-enforced custom” standard under § 1983.
Legal Significance: The case established a crucial summary judgment standard: the moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. It also defined “custom or usage” under § 1983 as requiring state enforcement, not just private practice.
ADICKES v. KRESS & CO. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Sandra Adickes, a white schoolteacher, was refused service at a Kress & Co. lunch counter in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, while in the company of her six Black students. Immediately upon leaving the store, a Hattiesburg police officer arrested her on a charge of vagrancy. Adickes filed a two-count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first count alleged that Kress refused her service pursuant to a state-enforced “custom” of racial segregation, violating her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. The second count alleged that the refusal of service and her subsequent arrest were the product of a conspiracy between Kress employees and the Hattiesburg police. Kress moved for summary judgment on the conspiracy count, submitting affidavits from its store manager and the arresting officers denying any communication or agreement. In opposition, Adickes pointed to evidence, including her own deposition, suggesting a police officer was present in the store at the time of the refusal. The district court granted summary judgment on the conspiracy count and a directed verdict for Kress on the custom count, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the lower courts err in granting summary judgment by failing to recognize that the moving party bears the initial burden of foreclosing the possibility of all genuine issues of material fact, and in narrowly defining the “custom or usage” element of a § 1983 claim?
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Kress, as the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the lower courts err in granting summary judgment by failing to recognize that the moving party bears the initial burden of foreclosing the possibility of all genuine issues of material fact, and in narrowly defining the “custom or usage” element of a § 1983 claim?
Conclusion
This landmark decision clarified the moving party's significant initial burden in summary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni
Legal Rule
1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the party moving for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in two distinct parts. First, addressing the conspiracy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of