Connection lost
Server error
Travis v. Murray 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: In a divorce, two spouses disputed ownership of their dog. The court rejected treating the dog as simple property or applying a child custody “best interests” standard. Instead, it created a new standard, “best for all concerned,” to determine sole possession in a limited hearing.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the “best for all concerned” standard for resolving pet ownership disputes in New York divorce cases, treating pets as a special class of property distinct from both children and inanimate objects, and rejecting court-ordered joint custody or visitation for pets.
Travis v. Murray 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 Shannon Travis and Defendant Trisha Murray were engaged in a divorce proceeding following a short, childless marriage. The sole contested issue was the possession of their 2.5-year-old miniature dachshund, Joey. Plaintiff had purchased Joey with her own funds before the marriage but while the parties were cohabitating. Upon separation, defendant moved out of the marital residence while plaintiff was away and took Joey with her, eventually placing the dog with her mother in Maine. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking what she termed “sole residential custody,” arguing that Joey was her separate property and that it was in the dog’s “best interests” to be with her. Defendant opposed, claiming Joey was a gift to her and that she was the primary caregiver, also invoking a “best interests” standard. The court was thus presented with competing claims based on traditional property law principles (purchase vs. gift) and child custody concepts (“best interests”).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a divorce proceeding, what is the appropriate legal standard for a court to apply when determining which spouse is entitled to sole possession of a companion animal?
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to the extent of setting 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 e
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
In a divorce proceeding, what is the appropriate legal standard for a court to apply when determining which spouse is entitled to sole possession of a companion animal?
Conclusion
This case provides a significant framework for New York matrimonial courts, establishing 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
Legal Rule
In a divorce action, a court should not apply a strict property 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 paria
Legal Analysis
The court navigated the tension between the traditional legal view of pets 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 dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In New York divorce cases, pets are treated as a special