Connection lost
Server error
Dolly Kyle Browning and Direct Outstanding Creations Corporation v. William Jefferson Clinton 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 woman sued former President Clinton and his associates for various torts, alleging they conspired to prevent publication of her novel about their affair. The court dismissed most claims but allowed the tortious interference claim against Clinton to proceed, finding it was adequately pleaded.
Legal Significance: The case illustrates the pleading standards for various intentional torts, distinguishing an adequately pleaded claim for interference with business expectancy from claims for defamation and IIED that fail due to privilege, hyperbole, or insufficient pleading of damages and outrageousness.
Dolly Kyle Browning and Direct Outstanding Creations Corporation v. William Jefferson Clinton 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
Dolly Kyle Browning alleged a long-term affair with William Jefferson Clinton and wrote a semi-autobiographical novel about it. She claimed that after she sought a publisher, Clinton and his associates engaged in a scheme to suppress the book and defame her. The alleged scheme included threats conveyed by Clinton’s brother and aide Bruce Lindsey, warning her not to cooperate with the media or publish the book. Later, Clinton and aide Marsha Scott created a memo for the Paula Jones litigation, stating Browning admitted her story was untrue and motivated by money. Clinton’s attorney, Robert S. Bennett, publicly described court filings that included Browning’s affidavit as “garbage” and “scurrilous.” A New Yorker article quoted a publisher, who had not seen the manuscript, saying he “wouldn’t touch [the book] with a ten-foot pole.” Browning alleged these actions constituted tortious interference with her prospective business opportunity to publish the novel, as well as defamation, IIED, and other torts. She claimed that despite initial publisher interest, she received no offers due to these actions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiff’s allegations of threats, defamatory statements, and other conduct by the former President and his associates sufficiently state claims for tortious interference with business expectancy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under D.C. law?
Yes, as to the tortious interference claim against Clinton, but no as 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 dolor
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 plaintiff’s allegations of threats, defamatory statements, and other conduct by the former President and his associates sufficiently state claims for tortious interference with business expectancy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under D.C. law?
Conclusion
The case serves as a key example of the fact-intensive analysis required 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 la
Legal Rule
To state a claim for tortious interference with business expectancy, a plaintiff 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 do
Legal Analysis
The court meticulously analyzed each tort claim under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal of tortious interference and conspiracy