BRIEFING CASES - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

BRIEFING CASES

Description:

Title: BRIEFING CASES Author: Pavel Wonsowicz Created Date: 9/3/2003 9:01:08 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show Company: University of Nevada Las Vegas – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:120
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: PavelWo
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: BRIEFING CASES


1
BRIEFING CASES
  • BY
  • PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ

2
WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?
  • PROFESSORS EXPECT IT
  • LAWYERS BRIEF EVERY DAY
  • THE BEST LEARNING IS ACTIVE LEARNING
  • YOU WILL USE THESE BRIEFS TO OUTLINE
  • ITS FEEDBACK

3
HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?
  • ITS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
  • IT WILL GET EASIER
  • THEY WILL GET SHORTER

4
WHAT DO THEY ENCOMPASS?
  • THE SALAD BAR APPROACH
  • IDENTIFICATION
  • FACTS
  • PROCEDURE
  • ISSUE
  • HOLDING (very important)
  • RATIONALE
  • EVALUATION

5
IDENTIFICATION
  • NAME
  • CITATION
  • YEAR
  • COURT
  • JUDGE
  • PAGE/SECTION OF BOOK

6
FACTS
  • EACH RIGHT OR BURDEN DEPENDS ON FACTS
  • FOCUS ON MATERIAL FACTS (FACTS THAT HAVE LEGAL
    SIGNIFICANCE AND THEREFORE INFLUENCE A COURTS
    REASONING)
  • A FACT IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT IF ALTERING OR
    ELIMINATING THAT FACT WOULD CHANGE THE LEGAL
    CONCLUSION OR RESULT OF THE CASE IT IS OUTCOME
    DETERMINATIVE
  • DONT BE AFRAID TO CHARACTERIZE PARTIES (BUYER,
    EMPLOYER, ETC.)

7
PROCEDURE
  • PARTY WHO BROUGHT ACTION
  • CLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND RELIEF SOUGHT
  • TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION AND STAGE
  • DISPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE COURTS
  • AUTHORING COURTS DISPOSITION
  • ALL THESE FACTS OCCUR AFTER THE LAWSUIT IS FILED

8
ISSUE
  • MATERIAL QUESTION OF FACT AND/OR LAW THAT ARISES
    IN A CASE
  • MUST BE STATED NARROWLY SO IT IDENTIFIES THE
    LEGAL QUESTION THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS CASE FROM
    OTHERS
  • LAW-CENTERED WHAT A PARTICULAR LAW MEANS
  • FACT-CENTERED APPLY A RULE OF LAW TO THE FACTS
    OF A CASE

9
ISSUE (Continued)
  • UNDER/DOES/WHEN FORMAT
  • UNDER the law
  • DOES the legal question
  • WHEN important facts exist

10
THE HOLDING
  • THE PREDICTIVE RULE OF THE CASE ALLOWS YOU TO
    PREDICT OUTCOMES
  • IDENTIFY THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE ESSENTIAL
    TO THE DECISION
  • WHEN THESE FACTS AND THIS LAW MEET, THEN THIS
    RESULT

11
RATIONALE
  • THE LOGIC THAT SUPPORTS THE HOLDING
  • ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT HOW THE HOLDING MIGHT BE
    INFLUENCED BY DIFFERENT FACTS
  • IS THE WHY OF THE HOLDING

12
EVALUATION
  • IS IT CONVINCING? WHY OR WHY NOT?
  • WHAT ARE THE COSTS?
  • WERE THE INTERPRETATIONS FAIR? FAULTY?

13
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
  • Citation
  • 393 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) 2005.

14
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
  • Facts
  • City of Toledo passed an ordinance banning
    smoking in public places including bars,
    restaurants, bowling alleys. A group of
    restaurant and bar owners filed suit claiming
    that the ordinance constituted a regulatory
    taking of their property in violation of the U.S.
    Constitution and that the ordinance was in
    violation of Ohio law.

15
D.A.B.E., Inc, v. City of Toledo
  • Issue (s)
  • Issue 1 Does the ordinance constitute a
    regulatory taking in that it denies the property
    owner economically viable use of his land in
    violation of the 5th Amendment to the U.S.
    Constitution?
  • Issue 2 Does the state statutes preempt the
    City of Toledo ordinance?

16
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
  • Holding
  • No to both questions. The ordinance did not
    constitute a regulatory taking because it only
    limited smoking, not prohibited it and plaintiffs
    may have other economic uses for the property.
  • The state law was not designed to limit what
    cities can do in terms of regulating smoking and
    the city ordinance did not conflict with state
    law.

17
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
  • Rationale
  • An economic taking must almost completely deny a
    property owner economic use of their land.
    Merely losing customers or profit is not enough.
    A smoking room might require a financial
    investment but that is not enough to constitute a
    taking. The owners could make other use of their
    property.

18
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
  • Rationale, cont
  • The state statute nowhere indicates that it was
    designed to limit what cities may or may not do.
    The city was within its rights to pass the
    ordinance and it is not inconsistent with Ohio
    law.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com