3 essays one page for each one, the due after 5 hours

FOR THE ESSAY QUESTION

1\ Example for case briefing

Please read and brief the following cases: 


New York Times v. Sullivan https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254




New York Times v. US 


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Facts of the case:

A government elected official brought suit in Alabama State Court, Montgomery against the New York Times newspaper. The allegation was that a paid advertisement appeared in the paper, that was presumed to be libelous to the elected official. Libel, if intended with malicious purposes, could be used as a reason to sue in Alabama.

The government official won the case but could not claim damages due to a lack of evidence showing malicious intent. Issues: The issue being disputed concerned if New York Times had intended malice in its printing of the paid advertisement or if it had intentionally ignored facts in an effort to harm. If this was the case, evidence existed against New York Times.

Decision: The Supreme Court, to which the New York Times appealed after initial judgment in favor of the official, ruled 9 to 0 in favor of the New York Times. Proof could not be established showing malicious intent on the part of the New York Times.

Reasoning: The First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard free speech and damages cannot be awarded to an official by the State if the individual is unable to prove a libelous statement has been made with malicious intent.

Conclusion: The case was a victory for the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment that guaranteed that freedom of speech and press is afforded to the citizens of the United States.

CASE BRIEFS 2

Title: New York Times Co. v. United States

Facts of the case: Richard Nixon acting under the US Govt. brought suit against the New York Times attempting to prevent them from publishing classified articles. Issues: The issue in question was if the New York Times was acting within its constitutional right to publish freely (as a member of the press) Decision: The Court ruling was in favor of the New York Times Reasoning: It is unconstitutional to hinder free speech, as granted by the first amendment, and if the New York Times was stopped from publication, then it would be a direct attack against the rights of the people.

Conclusion: The final ruling secured the freedom of press and its ability to serve the people without pressure from even the government.

2\ Example for case briefing

PLEASE READ AND BRIEF THE FOLLOWING CASES

BRANDENBURG V. OHIO https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

SCHENCK V. US

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

Title: Brandenburg v. Ohio

Facts of the case: A KKK leader was convicted under an Ohio law that allowed conviction for

promoting terrorism or violence as a way to achieve political or industrial changes. This law,

known as the Ohio Criminal Sydicalism statute outlawed advocacy of earlier mentioned criminal

activities to achieve political reform. The KKK leader made a speech promoting revenge against

CASE BRIEFS 3

the government if it did not stop suppressing ‘whites’, and was therefore convicted. Defendant

appealed the decision.

Issues: The issue at hand was whether the Ohio Statute violated the First Amendment and

Fourteenth amendment rights to freedom of speech under the United States Constitution.

Decision: Reversed. The Justices argued in favor of the Appellant and reversed his conviction.

Reasoning: The Ohio Statute overstepped on the First and Fourteenth Amendments

constitutionally allowing freedom of speech and press. It prohibited mere advocacy of violent

action or assembling with people advocating such actions. However, under free speech, a citizen

is allowed to advocate the use of force – as long as the advocacy does not directly incite or

promote certain lawless action. Therefore, the appellant was allowed to make hateful and violent

remarks so long as his speech had no danger of actually inciting violent actions. According to the

opinion of the Justices, “the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral

necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action

and steeling it to such action.”

Conclusion: This landmark case overruled an earlier case ‘Whitney v. California’ and guaranteed

the primacy of the First Amendment allowing free speech. Citizens of US are allowed to make

comments – no matter how hateful or violent – as long as they do not actually cause a group to

organize and carry out violent or illegal conduct.

CASE BRIEFS 4

Title: Schenck v. United States

Facts of the case: Defendants were convicted for a conspiracy to promote materials that

influenced people to avoid the military draft which is a rule of US law. This promotion of

materials was a conspiracy to violate Espionage Act, and a conspiracy to ‘commit an offence

agsint the United States’. In addition, the defendants violated the principles of mailing

documents that were deemed ‘nonmailable’.

Issue: Whether the leaflets (material) distributed was within the right of freedom to speech, or if

they used language that presented a clear danger of individuals committing acts regarded as

illegal by the United States.

Decision: Affirmed. The Court held that the material circulated was not within the boundaries of

freedom of speech.

Reasoning: The Court argued that since the United States was at war, the language used in the

materials circulated presented a clear and present danger to the United States, by preventing

people from being sent to war and defend the United States. The Government has a right to

prevent actions that are illegal, and in this circumstance, the leaflets imminently promoted

actions that were seen as evil and illegal in the eyes of the Government.

CASE BRIEFS 5

Conclusion: The decision of this case gave rise to a new standard that determined the validity of

freedom of speech. It added boundaries to freedom of speech by disallowing speech (or

circulation of materials) that could lead to a ‘clear and present danger’ to the principles of the

United States.

2# SAMPLE ESSAY QUESTION

On a sunny, breezy, Sunday afternoon in late October 2016, Regina George was holding a town hall style campaign meeting in hopes of securing her bid for the United States Senate.

Being back in her hometown was exciting for Regina given the travel associated with her busy campaign schedule. As such, Regina opted to leave straight from the campaign event and meet up with some friends at a restaurant in downtown.

While pulling into a parking space at “The,” the hip new spot in the Arts District, Regina was suddenly rear ended by a 2004 Honda Civic. The person who hit Regina got out of her car, yelled “You’re a terrible person Regina,” and then took off running.

The next day a newspaper published a report by Cady Heron. The article by Heron claimed that Regina, in a drunken stupor, backed into Cady’s car causing severe injuries.

Needless to say, Regina is furious. Not only is Regina in pain following the car accident, but the story from Cady is hurting the campaign.

Regina has come to you to sue Cady and make things right. Regina wants you to sue Cady for all claims on which you think we could be successful. Please draft a memorandum describing the claims Regina George can file against Cady Heron.

CASE BRIEFS 6

3#SAMPLE LAW ESSAY ANSWER

Essay Question

Claims Regina George can file against Cady Heron: George has the civil right to either file or not

file against Heron. George will be utilizing torts and suing Heron for a variety of claims.

Defamation

Regina George can file for defamation against Cady Heron. Being that Regina George is

a present public official, who is relying on her reputation to secure her bid in the US Senate, the

false claims spoken by Ms. Heron are damaging. However, since George is in a public official

position she must show that Heron acted with actual malice. Heron acted maliciously because

she hit George’s car and additionally ran way after the accident. Heron was in George’s

hometown, so there is reasonable expectation that Heron knew George and spoke against her

maliciously. Additionally there are two types of defamation that George can file.

Libel

Libel is written form of defamation. The next day Heron published a report on the

incident with George in a newspaper. This is written defamation because it caused a negative

affect on George’s reputation and career. The article written by Heron claims that Regina was in

a “drunken stupor”. To sue Heron, George will have to prove that Heron acted with actual

malice. George can prove that she was not drunk at the event, additionally Heron had no

interaction with George to factually show that George was drunk. This is a false claim that Heron

did not attempt to clear with facts. In the report Heron also said that George backed into Heron’s

car. Again, Heron acted with actual malice because facts show that it was Heron who rear-ended

George. Heron failed to find truth and disclose all the facts of the incident. In the report Heron

CASE BRIEFS 7

also says that George caused “severe injuries”. Again Heron fails to attempt to find actual facts,

she does not speak to George about and injuries, again she acted with actual malice while writing

damaging statements on George. George is a public figure and is severely hurt by the accident

caused by Heron, both professionally in her campaign, and physically in the pain she felt after

the accident caused by Heron. George can successfully sue against Heron for libel.

Slander

Slander is the spoken form of defamation. George can sue Heron for slander because of

the statements Heron made immediately after the accident. Heron yelled “you’re a terrible person

Regina”. George has to prove that Heron acted with actual malice because she is still a public

figure, in or out of her hometown. Heron did not speak to George, or even stick around after the

accident to gather facts. Heron spoke out and ran away immediately after the accident. Since

George is a public figure whose career relies on her reputation, she is a politician so damaging

comments on her personality and her as a person are very serious. Heron is expected to know

who George is because she is on campaign and in her hometown, so she acted to cause damages

on her. This claim would be successful against Heron.

Battery

Battery is the unlawful and offensive attack on a person. Heron physically hurt George’s

car. She unlawfully rear-ended the vehicle, which caused George to have physical pain. Heron’s

car is her property and therefore she caused a physical attack on George. George experienced

physical pain as a result from the accident. George could rightfully sue Heron for battery.

Assault

CASE BRIEFS 8

Assault is the immediate threat or apprehension of threat by force or fear. George can sue

Heron for assault by saying that Heron caused immediate fear in her when she hit her car. This

caused immediate threat to George because she was in an accident and then got yelled at by

Heron. Heron caused serious fear in George in the accident. George could successfully sue

Heron for assault.

Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Similarly Heron hurt George with her property, her car. Heron’s car is a deadly weapon

because of the damage it can cause a person. Heron hit Regina’s property, her car, and caused

physical pain on George. George can sue Heron for assaulting her with a deadly weapon and she

could be successful.

Homicide

Homicide is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought. Heron hit George’s car, which

could serve as her intention and method to kill George. Since, George did not die from the

accident, so this would not succeed.

Robbery

Robbery is the unlawful taking of an item from another by force or fear. George could sue

Heron for robbery. George could argue that Heron used force from her car to provoke fear in her.

Heron could have been planning to take items from George because she knows she is a well-off

politician. Since Heron did not take any items from Heron, this claim would not be successful.

Felony Murder Rule

CASE BRIEFS 9

Felony murder rule states that while in commission of a felony and a homicide results,

by common law rule you are on the hook for first degree murder. Heron was not acting in a

felony, and a homicide did not result. George would be unsuccessful with this claim.

To conclude George has a great chance of successfully filing a variety of torts against Heron.

4# SAMPLE TEST

John Doe had recently separated from his longtime partner and experienced great difficult with the break-up. In addition to struggling with his new life, he has also started drinking excessively every day. Just a week ago Doe lost his job as an accountant at a major law firm because of his alcoholism.

Broke and heartbroken Doe spent most days in his apartment drinking the cheapest alcohol he could buy. One week ago, Doe found his way to the liquor store he frequents more and more often. Showing up clearly intoxicated, the shop owner refused to sell alcohol to Doe. Doe became infuriated, threw his bottle of liquor on the floor, grabbed a case of beer next to the counter and walked out of the store.

Doe was arrested just outside liquor store, surrounded by three cans of beer, slumped over and unconscious.

You are a deputy district attorney and you must determine what charges, if any, to charge John Doe with. Please describe the reasoning you used to arrive at your decision.

SINCERELY,

DISTRICT ATTORNEY SMITH

CASE BRIEFS 10