Gordon v. Steele Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 student sued Pennsylvania doctors in federal court, claiming Idaho citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. The court found she established Idaho domicile by intending to remain indefinitely, despite prior Pennsylvania ties.
Legal Significance: Establishes that for diversity jurisdiction, a student can acquire a new domicile by being physically present in a new state and forming a subjective intent to remain there indefinitely, not necessarily permanently.
Gordon v. Steele 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 Susan Gordon, originally a Pennsylvania domiciliary, sued Pennsylvania-based defendants for medical malpractice in federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. At the time of filing, Gordon was 19, having reached the age of majority. Eight months prior to filing suit, Gordon enrolled in Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho, rented an apartment there, and expressed her intention not to return to Pennsylvania. Defendants challenged diversity jurisdiction, arguing Gordon remained a Pennsylvania citizen. Factors indicating Pennsylvania ties included her parents’ residence there, use of a Pennsylvania driver’s license, a Pennsylvania bank account, and returning for some vacations and summer work. Factors supporting Idaho domicile included her apartment rental, her subjective intent to make Idaho her home indefinitely, her membership in Idaho Blue Cross, and her desire to marry within her faith, for which she believed opportunities were greater in Idaho. The critical determination was her citizenship at the time the action was commenced.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiff establish a new domicile in Idaho for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction by moving there to attend college with the intent to remain indefinitely, despite maintaining some ties to her previous state of Pennsylvania?
Yes, the plaintiff is a citizen of Idaho for diversity jurisdiction purposes. 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the plaintiff establish a new domicile in Idaho for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction by moving there to attend college with the intent to remain indefinitely, despite maintaining some ties to her previous state of Pennsylvania?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that a student's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes is 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 irur
Legal Rule
For diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, citizenship is determined by 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
Legal Analysis
The court determined plaintiff's domicile by weighing indicators of her intent. Key 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 pa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A student’s domicile for diversity jurisdiction hinges on physical presence and