Connection lost
Server error
Steinberg v. United States 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 man with a free ticket to the presidential inauguration sued the government for breach of contract after being denied entry. The court found no contract existed due to a lack of consideration and mutual intent to be bound.
Legal Significance: Illustrates that government-issued gratuitous promises, like free event tickets, generally lack the consideration and mutual intent necessary to form an enforceable contract, even if the recipient incurs expenses in reliance on the promise.
Steinberg v. United States 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
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) announced it would distribute approximately 240,000 complimentary tickets for the 2009 presidential inauguration. The plaintiff, Michael Steinberg, obtained two tickets from his Congressman for a reserved viewing area. The tickets contained a warning to “arrive early due to large crowds.” After obtaining the tickets, Steinberg incurred expenses traveling to Washington, D.C. On the day of the inauguration, he and his guest arrived at the designated section but were denied entry. Steinberg filed suit against the United States, initially on a theory of promissory estoppel, later amended to a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. He argued that his travel expenses constituted a detriment that served as consideration, and that the government’s distribution of a ticket was an offer that he accepted, creating a binding contract to provide him a spot in the viewing area.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the government’s issuance of a free, revocable ticket to a public event create an enforceable implied-in-fact contract obligating it to admit the ticketholder?
No, the issuance of a free ticket did not create an enforceable 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
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 government’s issuance of a free, revocable ticket to a public event create an enforceable implied-in-fact contract obligating it to admit the ticketholder?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that a gratuitous promise from the government does not 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
Legal Rule
To establish a valid implied-in-fact contract with the United States, 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 nu
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim under the traditional elements of contract 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 labo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Court of Federal Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over promissory estoppel