Connection lost
Server error
Stanley Jancik v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and Marsha Allen 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 landlord advertised for a “mature person” and questioned prospective tenants about their race and family status. The court held these actions violated the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on statements that indicate a discriminatory preference.
Legal Significance: Establishes that under the Fair Housing Act, a landlord’s statements violate § 3604(c) if they would suggest a discriminatory preference to an “ordinary listener,” considering the full context of the communication.
Stanley Jancik v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and Marsha Allen 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
Stanley Jancik, a landlord, placed a newspaper advertisement for a one-bedroom apartment stating a “mature person [is] preferred.” The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, a fair housing organization, dispatched two “testers” to inquire about the unit. Jancik asked the white tester her age and race, specifically inquiring if her Norwegian surname meant she was “white Norwegian or black Norwegian.” He also told her he did not want teenagers in the building. Jancik asked the African American tester about her race and whether she had children. Upon learning she had no children, he replied “wonderful” and explained he was screening applicants to avoid tenants who were loud or had children. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) charged Jancik with violating § 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by making statements indicating a preference based on familial status and race. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Jancik had violated the FHA, and Jancik petitioned the circuit court for review.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Do a landlord’s advertisement for a “mature person” and oral inquiries into prospective tenants’ race and familial status constitute statements that “indicate” a preference, limitation, or discrimination in violation of § 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act?
Yes. The court affirmed the agency’s finding that the landlord’s advertisement and 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
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
Do a landlord’s advertisement for a “mature person” and oral inquiries into prospective tenants’ race and familial status constitute statements that “indicate” a preference, limitation, or discrimination in violation of § 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the use of the objective "ordinary listener/reader" standard 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 ul
Legal Rule
A statement or advertisement violates § 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 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 cupidata
Legal Analysis
The court adopted the objective "ordinary reader/listener" standard to determine whether 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 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A landlord’s ad for a “mature person” and oral statements discouraging