Connection lost
Server error
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 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 man choked by police sought an injunction to stop the practice. The Supreme Court denied the request, finding he could not prove a sufficient likelihood that he personally would be choked again, and thus lacked standing to seek future relief.
Legal Significance: Established that a plaintiff seeking an injunction must demonstrate a real and immediate threat of future injury, separate from any past harm, to satisfy Article III standing requirements for prospective relief.
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 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
Respondent Adolph Lyons was stopped by Los Angeles police officers for a minor traffic violation. Without provocation, the officers applied a department-authorized “chokehold,” rendering Lyons unconscious and causing physical injury. Lyons filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Los Angeles and the officers. He sought monetary damages for his past injuries and, crucially, a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit the LAPD from using chokeholds except in situations where deadly force was justified. Lyons alleged that the City had a policy of routinely applying these dangerous holds in non-life-threatening situations, resulting in numerous injuries and deaths. He claimed he justifiably feared that any future contact with LAPD officers could result in him being choked again. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether Lyons had standing to seek the injunction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a plaintiff who has suffered a past injury from an allegedly unconstitutional police policy have Article III standing to seek an injunction against that policy’s future application without showing a real and immediate likelihood that he will personally be subjected to the policy again?
No. The Court held that Lyons lacked the requisite Article III standing 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 a
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
Does a plaintiff who has suffered a past injury from an allegedly unconstitutional police policy have Article III standing to seek an injunction against that policy’s future application without showing a real and immediate likelihood that he will personally be subjected to the policy again?
Conclusion
This case establishes a critical distinction between standing for retrospective damages and 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 exercit
Legal Rule
To satisfy the Article III 'case or controversy' requirement for prospective injunctive 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, s
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis bifurcated the standing inquiry, treating the claim for damages 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 en
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To have Article III standing for an injunction, a plaintiff must