Peterson v. Sorlien 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: Parents deprogrammed their adult daughter from a religious group. The court held that her subsequent assent to the process retroactively validated the initial period of confinement, negating her false imprisonment claim.
Legal Significance: Establishes a controversial, limited privilege for parents to confine an adult child for deprogramming from a cult, where the child’s judgmental capacity is believed to be impaired and the child later assents to the intervention.
Peterson v. Sorlien 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 Peterson, a 21-year-old college student, became deeply involved in a group called The Way Ministry. Her parents, alarmed by her significant personality changes and alienation, concluded she was a victim of ‘coercive persuasion’ that impaired her psychological autonomy. Believing her judgmental capacity was diminished, they enlisted the help of deprogrammers and transported her to a private residence. For the first three days, Peterson was held against her will; she resisted, cried, and pleaded to be released. During this time, her father physically restrained her. Subsequently, her demeanor changed, and for the next thirteen days, she appeared to participate willingly in the deprogramming. She went on public outings, including roller-skating, playing softball, and flying on a commercial airplane, without attempting to escape or alert authorities despite numerous opportunities. After sixteen days, she refused to sign a liability waiver, contacted the police, and returned to The Way. She then filed suit against her parents and the deprogrammers for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an adult’s subsequent voluntary participation in a deprogramming process retroactively validate an initial period of non-consensual confinement, thereby negating a claim for false imprisonment?
Yes, the defendants were not liable for false imprisonment. The court held 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 p
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
Does an adult’s subsequent voluntary participation in a deprogramming process retroactively validate an initial period of non-consensual confinement, thereby negating a claim for false imprisonment?
Conclusion
This case establishes a narrow and controversial defense to false imprisonment, allowing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Legal Rule
When parents, acting under the conviction that their adult child's judgmental capacity 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 dol
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis departs from the traditional tort doctrine of false imprisonment, 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 qu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court created a limited privilege against false imprisonment claims for