MAS v. PERRY Case Brief
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 married couple, a French citizen and a Mississippi citizen living in Louisiana as students, sued their Louisiana landlord in federal court. The court upheld diversity jurisdiction, ruling the wife retained her Mississippi domicile because student status does not show intent to remain permanently.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that for diversity jurisdiction, citizenship means domicile, which requires an intent to remain indefinitely. It also holds that a U.S. citizen does not automatically assume the domicile of their alien spouse, thus preserving access to federal courts.
MAS v. PERRY 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
Plaintiffs Jean Paul Mas, a French citizen, and Judy Mas, a U.S. citizen from Mississippi, were married. They both resided in Baton Rouge, Louisiana as graduate students at Louisiana State University (LSU). They rented an apartment from the defendant, Oliver Perry, a citizen of Louisiana. The Mases discovered that Perry had installed two-way mirrors in their bedroom and bathroom and had been spying on them. They filed suit in federal district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. At the time the complaint was filed, the Mases were living in Illinois but intended to return to Louisiana temporarily for Mr. Mas to complete his studies; they were undecided on where they would reside permanently. Perry moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Mrs. Mas was a citizen of Louisiana, which would destroy the complete diversity required between plaintiffs and the defendant. The district court denied the motion, and a jury awarded damages to the Mases. Perry appealed solely on jurisdictional grounds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For the purpose of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction, does a person acquire a new domicile in a state where they reside only as a student, and does a U.S. citizen woman’s domicile automatically change to that of her alien husband upon marriage?
No. The court held that federal diversity jurisdiction was proper. Mrs. Mas 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
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
For the purpose of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction, does a person acquire a new domicile in a state where they reside only as a student, and does a U.S. citizen woman’s domicile automatically change to that of her alien husband upon marriage?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear and enduring framework for determining domicile in 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 exerci
Legal Rule
For diversity jurisdiction purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a person's state 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 dolo
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the definition of domicile for diversity jurisdiction. 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- For diversity jurisdiction, citizenship means domicile, which requires physical presence and