Download
1 / 18
180 likes | 282 Views
BRIEFING CASES. BY PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ. 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 IT’S FEEDBACK. HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?. IT’S AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IT WILL GET EASIER
E N D
BRIEFING CASES BY PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ
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 • IT’S FEEDBACK
HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO THIS? • IT’S AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS • IT WILL GET EASIER • THEY WILL GET SHORTER
WHAT DO THEY ENCOMPASS? • THE SALAD BAR APPROACH • IDENTIFICATION • FACTS • PROCEDURE • ISSUE • HOLDING (very important) • RATIONALE • EVALUATION
IDENTIFICATION • NAME • CITATION • YEAR • COURT • JUDGE • PAGE/SECTION OF BOOK
FACTS • EACH RIGHT OR BURDEN DEPENDS ON FACTS • FOCUS ON MATERIAL FACTS (FACTS THAT HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THEREFORE INFLUENCE A COURT’S 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 • DON’T BE AFRAID TO CHARACTERIZE PARTIES (BUYER, EMPLOYER, ETC.)
PROCEDURE • PARTY WHO BROUGHT ACTION • CLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND RELIEF SOUGHT • TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION AND STAGE • DISPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE COURTS • AUTHORING COURT’S DISPOSITION • ALL THESE FACTS OCCUR AFTER THE LAWSUIT IS FILED
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
ISSUE (Continued) • UNDER/DOES/WHEN FORMAT • UNDER [the law] • DOES [the legal question] • WHEN [important facts exist]
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
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
EVALUATION • IS IT CONVINCING? WHY OR WHY NOT? • WHAT ARE THE COSTS? • WERE THE INTERPRETATIONS FAIR? FAULTY?
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo • Citation: • 393 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) 2005.
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.
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?
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.
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.
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo • Rationale, con’t • 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.
