Connection lost
Server error
Thompson v. Royall 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 testatrix wrote “null and void” on the back of her will’s cover sheet. The court held this was not a valid revocation because the writing did not physically touch or deface the will’s text.
Legal Significance: Establishes the majority rule that for a will to be revoked by “cancellation,” the revoking marks must physically touch the text of the will, not merely appear on a blank portion of the document.
Thompson v. Royall 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
On September 4, 1932, Mrs. M. Lou Bowen Kroll executed a valid will, and on September 15, a valid codicil. On September 19, she instructed her attorney to destroy both documents. Instead, at the attorney’s suggestion, she decided to keep them as memoranda for a potential future will. The attorney wrote on the back of the manuscript cover attached to the will: “This will null and void and to be only held by H. P. Brittain, instead of being destroyed, as a memorandum for another will if I desire to make same.” Mrs. Kroll signed this notation. A similar signed notation was made on the back of the codicil. These writings were not attested by witnesses. The text of the will and codicil remained physically untouched, with no marks, lines, or alterations on their faces. Mrs. Kroll died on October 2, 1932, without creating a new will. When the will and codicil were offered for probate, her heirs at law contested, arguing the notations constituted a valid revocation by cancellation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a signed writing on the back of a will’s manuscript cover, which does not touch any of the will’s text, constitute a valid revocation by “canceling” under a statute requiring a physical act of cancellation?
No. The will was not validly revoked. The notations on the back 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 labor
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 signed writing on the back of a will’s manuscript cover, which does not touch any of the will’s text, constitute a valid revocation by “canceling” under a statute requiring a physical act of cancellation?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the strict compliance doctrine for will revocation, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dol
Legal Rule
Under Virginia Code § 5233, revocation of a will by cancellation requires 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 ull
Legal Analysis
The court determined that a valid revocation requires both the intent to 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 dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A signed, unattested writing on the back of a will stating