Details of this Paper

sample case brie

Description

solution


Question

1.Casename:Includethefullcitation,includingthedateoftheopinion,forfuturereferenceandcitation.;Anexamplewouldbeasfollows:Statev.Holloran,140NH563(1995).RefertoBluebooktodetermine;thecorrectnameforthecase.;2.Pincites:Includepinpointcites(citestoaparticularpageinthecase)throughoutthecasebriefsoyou;canfindmaterialagainquicklywithinacase.;3.ProceduralHistory:Whathappenedtothecasebeforeitarrivedinthiscourt?Ifitisanappellate;case,listthedecisionsmadebythelowercourt(s)andnotewhatdecisionisbeingreviewed(e.g.,jury;verdict,summaryjudgment).Youmayneedtolookupproceduralphraseswithwhichyouareunfamiliar.;4.Facts:Includeonlythefactsthatwererelevanttothecourtsdecision.Youareunlikelytoknowwhat;theseareuntilyouhavereadtheentireopinion.Manycasesmayincludeproceduralfactsthatare;relevanttothedecisioninadditiontothefactsthathappenedbeforelitigation.;5.Issue:Theparticularquestionthecourthadtodecideinthiscase.Itusuallyincludesspecificfactsas;wellasalegalquestion.Itmaybeexpressedorimpliedinthedecision.Casesmayhavemorethanone;issue.;6.Holding/Decision:Thelegalanswertotheissue.Iftheissueisclearlywritten,thentheholdingcan;beexpressedasyesorno.(Becarefulnottoconfusetheholdingwithimplicitreasoning.See#8;below.);7.Rule:Thegenerallegalprinciple(s)relevanttotheparticularfactualsituationpresentedinthecase.;8.Reasoning:Thelogicalstepsthecourttakestoarriveattheholding.Itcanbestraightforwardand;obvious,oryoumayhavetoextrapolateitfromtheholding.Somereasoningisbasedonsocialpolicy;whichtellsyouwhytheholdingissociallydesirable.Understandingthereasoningbehindadecisionis;essential.Additionally,consideringthecorevalueofintegrity,specificallycommentonwhethervoluntarily;agreeingtosubmittoanonmandatorydrugtestconstitutesanopportunitytodemonstratepersonal;integrityorwhetherassertingtherighttorefusetosubmittoadrugtestmightalsoconstitutea;demonstrationofintegrity.Providerationaleforyourposition.;9.Disposition:Astatementofwhatthecourtactuallydidinthecase(affirmed,overruled,etc.);10.Dissent/Concurrence:Althoughthispartoftheopinionisnotconsideredlaw,itmayhelpyoubetter;understandsomeinformationaboutthelegalreasoninginthecase.Notallcaseshaveadissentor;concurrence,whilesomemayhavemorethanone.;11.Comments:Includeyourownresponsestothecasehere.Forexample,doesthereasoningmake;sense?Istheholdingconsistentwithothercasesyouhaveread?Isthecaserelevanttothequestionyou;aretryingtoanswer?Thisisagoodplacetonoteconnectionsbetweenthecaseyouarebriefingand;othercasesyouhaveread.;SampleCaseBrief;Remember,mostcasebriefscontainsimilarinformationbuttheheadingsandtheirsequencemaybe;differentthanwhatisoutlinedabove.Youshouldincludeinyourbriefallelementsthatyoudeem;necessarywhetherornottheyareincludedinthesamplebelow.;Name;LukeRecords,Inc.v.Navarro,960F.2d134(11thCir.1992);ProceduralHistory;Appealedfromthetrialcourtdecision.;Facts;LukeRecords,Inc.,arecordinglabel,heldacontractwiththemusicalgroup2LiveCrew.Thisgroupwas;wellknowninthegenreof"Rap"music,whichhasrepeatedlybeenaccusedofincorporating"obscene;lyricsintothemusic.Obscene,inthissense,pertainsonlytothelegaldefinitionofobscenity,notwhat;anyparticularpersonormoralcodemaydeemobscene.LukeRecords,Inc.wasaFloridaCorporation;andNickNavarrowasthesheriffofBrowardCountyatthetime.Thesheriffobtainedanexparte;injunction(thismeansaninjunctionwithoutbothpartiesbeingpresentattheinitialhearing)grantingthe;sheriffaninjunction(acourtorderto"stop"doingaparticularact).Thisinjunctionwasservedonlocal;recordstoresinanefforttohavethemusicremovedfromFloridaretailsale.AfterthelocalFloridaCircuit;CourtinBrowardCountyissuedtheinjunction,thedecisionwasappealedtotheUnitedStatesDistrict;CourtforSouthernFloridawheretheCourtorderedthesherifftostopenforcingtheinjunction,butdid,in;fact,rulethatthemusicwasobscene,especiallythesong"AsNastyAsTheyWannaBe."Thesheriff;appealedthecasetotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals,11thCircuit,inAtlanta.;Issue;IsthismusicobsceneunderFloridastatelawand/orfederalConstitution?;Holding/Decision;No;Rule;Obscenitymustmeetthreepartrule.BasedonSupremeCourtcaseMillerv.CA.Allthreepartsmustbe;met:(a)whethertheaverageperson,applyingcontemporarycommunitystandardswouldfindthatthe;work,takenasawhole,appealstotheprurientinterest,(b)whethertheworkdepictsordescribes,ina;patentlyoffensiveway,sexualconductspecificallydefinedbytheapplicablestatelaw,and(c)whether;thework,takenasawhole,lacksseriousliterary,artistic,political,orscientificvalue.;Reasoning;Theburdenofproofcouldbeclearandconvincingorpreponderanceoftheevidencetest:however,at;thetimethesheriffwasgrantedthemusic,heofferednothingintoevidenceexceptatapeofthemusic;playedbeforethecourt.Therewasnoadditionalevidencepresentedthatshowedanaverageperson;applyingcontemporarycommunitystandardswouldfindthesongappealingonlytoaprurientinterest.;Further,thesherifffailedtoprovepart(b)and(c)ofthetestaswellsimplybecausehemadenoattempt;toenteranyothertestimonyorevidenceintoconsiderationbeforethecourt.Thesherifffailedtomeethis;burden,althoughitiswellpossiblethathadhesubmittedallevidenceasrequired,hecouldpossiblyhave;metthetest.;Comments;Casereallydeterminedbythesheriff'sfailureofproof.Nodiscussionofnatureofmusic.Nodiscussionof;rule.Noproperevidencesubmittedtothecourt.Additional Requirements;Min Pages: 1;Level of Detail: Only answer needed;Other Requirements: I have attached the case brief and instructions on the layout of the case brief with a sample case brief below it. Please follow the same outline.

 

Paper#16406 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $22
SiteLock