Connection lost
Server error
De May v. Roberts 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 physician brought a non-medical man to a woman’s childbirth, misrepresenting his status. The court held that the woman’s consent to his presence and touch was invalid due to the deceit, making the defendants liable for battery and invasion of privacy.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the principle that consent to an otherwise tortious act (like battery or intrusion) is invalid if it is induced by fraud or deceit as to the essential nature or character of the conduct or the actor’s identity.
De May v. Roberts 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
The plaintiff, Mrs. Roberts, hired the defendant, Dr. De May, to assist with her childbirth. Dr. De May brought defendant Scattergood, a young, unmarried layman with no medical training, to the plaintiff’s small home. The doctor introduced Scattergood vaguely as a “friend” who was there to help carry his things. The plaintiff and her husband, reasonably believing Scattergood to be a medical student or assistant physician, did not object to his presence in the delivery room. During a labor pain, at Dr. De May’s direction, Scattergood held the plaintiff’s hand to assist. The plaintiff later discovered Scattergood’s true non-professional status and sued both men for assault and battery and for wrongfully intruding upon the privacy of her confinement. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s husband had consented and that their actions were necessary due to bad weather and the doctor’s fatigue.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is consent to the presence and physical contact of a third party during a medical procedure legally valid if that consent was procured through a deceptive misrepresentation of the third party’s professional qualifications and purpose?
No. The defendants are liable for their actions. The plaintiff’s consent to 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 voluptat
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
Is consent to the presence and physical contact of a third party during a medical procedure legally valid if that consent was procured through a deceptive misrepresentation of the third party’s professional qualifications and purpose?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent in tort law, affirming that consent 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 exercitat
Legal Rule
A plaintiff's consent to an act that would otherwise constitute a tort, 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 vol
Legal Analysis
The court's reasoning focused on the invalidity of the plaintiff's consent, which 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 rep
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Consent to another’s presence or to a physical touching is invalid