Connection lost
Server error
Perry v. Atkinson 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 her married lover for fraud, alleging he induced her to have an abortion by falsely promising to impregnate her later. The court dismissed the claim, holding that public policy and privacy rights prevent courts from adjudicating promises made within intimate, sexual relationships.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a public policy limitation on the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, holding that promises concerning procreation and sexual conduct between consenting adults are generally not actionable in tort due to privacy concerns and the risk of unwarranted governmental intrusion into intimate relationships.
Perry v. Atkinson 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 Lee Perry and Defendant Richard Atkinson, a married man, were engaged in an intimate relationship. In August 1977, Perry discovered she was pregnant with Atkinson’s child. Atkinson urged her to have an abortion. To persuade her, Atkinson promised that he would conceive a child with her one year later, either through sexual intercourse or artificial insemination, even if they were no longer together. Perry alleged that Atkinson had no intention of keeping this promise and made the statement solely to deceive her. In reliance on Atkinson’s promise, Perry terminated the pregnancy, which caused her significant physical and emotional distress, including depression requiring psychiatric treatment and lost earnings. She subsequently filed suit, alleging a cause of action for fraud and deceit based on Atkinson’s false promise. The trial court sustained Atkinson’s demurrer to the fraud cause of action, concluding that it was barred by public policy.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a plaintiff state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation based on a defendant’s false promise to impregnate her, which was made to induce her to terminate a pregnancy?
No. The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud and deceit cause 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 l
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
Can a plaintiff state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation based on a defendant’s false promise to impregnate her, which was made to induce her to terminate a pregnancy?
Conclusion
The case solidifies a significant public policy exception to tort liability for 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 i
Legal Rule
On public policy grounds, a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation cannot 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 f
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the public policy of non-intervention in the 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 ullamc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: No cause of action exists for fraud based on a