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.