Connection lost
Server error
HILL v. STONE 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: Texas law required citizens to declare property for taxation to vote in bond elections. The Supreme Court struck down the law, finding it unconstitutionally disenfranchised voters in a general interest election without a compelling state justification, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Legal Significance: This case solidifies the principle that any classification restricting the franchise in a general interest election, even if not explicitly based on wealth, is subject to strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling state interest to survive an Equal Protection challenge.
HILL v. STONE 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
Texas law restricted the franchise in municipal bond elections to citizens who had “rendered” (i.e., listed for taxation) some real, mixed, or personal property. The City of Fort Worth held a bond election for a new library, using a dual-box system where “renderers” and “non-renderers” voted separately. For a bond to pass, it needed a majority in the renderers’ box and in the aggregate. While the library bond received a majority of total votes, it failed to secure a majority among the renderers and was therefore defeated. Appellees, who were registered voters but had not rendered property, challenged the Texas law. They argued it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by unconstitutionally disenfranchising them in an election of general community interest.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state law that limits the right to vote in a city’s general obligation bond election to persons who have rendered property for taxation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes. The Texas rendering requirement is an unconstitutional classification that impermissibly disenfranchises 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 i
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 law that limits the right to vote in a city’s general obligation bond election to persons who have rendered property for taxation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces and extends the *Kramer* line of cases, confirming that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
As long as an election is not one of special interest, any 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
Legal Analysis
The Court applied the strict scrutiny standard established in *Kramer v. Union 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A Texas law limiting voting in bond elections to persons who
