Connection lost
Server error
Eilers v. Coy 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: The court granted a directed verdict for the plaintiff on his false imprisonment claim, finding that his abduction and confinement for deprogramming by defendants lacked legal justification, particularly as the necessity defense failed.
Legal Significance: This case underscores that good motives do not excuse false imprisonment and narrowly construes the necessity defense, requiring resort to lawful alternatives before depriving an adult of liberty.
Eilers v. Coy 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
Plaintiff William Eilers, a 24-year-old member of the Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, was abducted by his parents, relatives, and hired deprogrammers (defendants) in August 1982. He was forcibly taken to the Tau Center, a dormitory-style building with boarded-up windows and a dismantled telephone. Eilers was held for five and one-half days, initially handcuffed to a bed, and subjected to deprogramming attempts. He resisted, and though he later feigned consent to find an escape opportunity, he was never free to leave, with exits guarded by security men. Prior to the abduction, plaintiff’s relatives had unsuccessfully sought his civil commitment; a psychiatric social worker found no grounds for confinement, and defendants were aware of this. Eilers eventually escaped when being transported for further deprogramming. The defendants admitted intending to confine Eilers for at least one week.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendants’ actions in abducting and confining the plaintiff for deprogramming constitute false imprisonment, and if so, was such confinement legally justified by the defense of necessity?
Yes, the defendants falsely imprisoned the plaintiff without legal justification. The court 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 adip
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 defendants’ actions in abducting and confining the plaintiff for deprogramming constitute false imprisonment, and if so, was such confinement legally justified by the defense of necessity?
Conclusion
The case establishes that the necessity defense to false imprisonment is narrowly 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
Legal Rule
False imprisonment consists of: 1) words or acts intended to confine a 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
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the plaintiff met all three elements of false 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Court granted directed verdict for plaintiff on false imprisonment; defendants’ deprogramming