Connection lost
Server error
Clark v. Jeter 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 mother challenged Pennsylvania’s 6-year statute of limitations for paternity suits. The Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional, finding it violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against illegitimate children without being substantially related to a valid state interest.
Legal Significance: This case solidified that statutes of limitations creating different rules for illegitimate children are subject to intermediate scrutiny and are often unconstitutional, especially given scientific advances in paternity testing that undermine the state’s interest in preventing fraudulent claims.
Clark v. Jeter 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
Petitioner Cherlyn Clark filed a child support action in 1983 on behalf of her daughter, Tiffany, who was born out of wedlock in 1973. Clark named respondent Gene Jeter as the father. Blood tests showed a 99.3% probability of Jeter’s paternity. Jeter moved to dismiss the suit, asserting it was barred by Pennsylvania’s 6-year statute of limitations for paternity actions. At the time, Pennsylvania law permitted a legitimate child to seek support from a parent at any time, but required an illegitimate child to establish paternity within six years of birth. Clark challenged the statute, arguing that the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Pennsylvania state courts upheld the 6-year statute, finding it constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the statute’s classification based on illegitimacy could withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state statute of limitations requiring that paternity suits for illegitimate children be filed within six years of birth, while allowing legitimate children to seek support at any time, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes. The Court held that Pennsylvania’s 6-year statute of limitations for paternity 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 no
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 state statute of limitations requiring that paternity suits for illegitimate children be filed within six years of birth, while allowing legitimate children to seek support at any time, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
Clark v. Jeter extended the Court's skepticism of short statutes of limitations 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 com
Legal Rule
To withstand intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, a statutory classification 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
Legal Analysis
The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, the established standard for classifications based on 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 cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat no
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state’s 6-year statute of limitations for paternity actions brought on