Connection lost
Server error
Clark v. Commonwealth 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 entered a grocery store during business hours and robbed it. The court held that his entry, while seemingly lawful, constituted statutory burglary because his intent to commit a felony at the time of entry negated the store owner’s consent.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that under Virginia’s statutory burglary law, an entry into a public establishment with felonious intent is an unlawful entry. The defendant’s criminal purpose vitiates the general consent given to the public to enter the premises.
Clark v. Commonwealth 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
Timothy Clark entered the Kentuck Grocery at 8:00 p.m., during its regular business hours when it was open to the public. After asking an employee for the bathroom, Clark returned to the counter, simulated having a gun, and demanded money from the cash register. The employee complied. Clark later confessed to the robbery. He was indicted for statutory burglary under Va. Code § 18.2-90, which criminalizes, inter alia, entering a storehouse in the nighttime without breaking with the intent to commit robbery. At trial, Clark argued he could not be guilty of burglary because his entry into the open store was lawful and consensual. The trial court convicted him of statutory burglary, and he appealed, challenging the lawfulness of his entry.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a person’s entry into a commercial establishment that is open to the public constitute an unlawful entry for the purposes of statutory burglary if the person enters with the contemporaneous intent to commit a felony therein?
Yes. The conviction for statutory burglary is affirmed. An individual who enters 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
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 person’s entry into a commercial establishment that is open to the public constitute an unlawful entry for the purposes of statutory burglary if the person enters with the contemporaneous intent to commit a felony therein?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that for statutory burglary, the element of unlawful entry 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
Legal Rule
Under Va. Code § 18.2-90, an entry into a building, even one 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 repr
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the interpretation of Va. Code § 18.2-90, 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. Ex
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A person who enters a store open to the public with