Business Finance
Case Brief

Question Description

2 pages, will be checked for plagiarism on Turnitin

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). 546 U.S. 243 (2006). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-623.ZS.h...

I have provided a sample case brief and also a handout on how to brief a case for assistance. You will be graded in part on following the proper format of a case brief and in capturing the essentials points of the case as outlined in the handout. I have also enclosed a copy of the grading rubric.

Your brief should be around two pages long. If you quote the case, you need to put in a citation. You are not to use other websites but give me your own analysis of the case using the headings provided.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

How to Brief a Case Prepared for the Legal Studies Program American Public University System December 2013 Introduction: A case brief is a concise summary of the significance of a case. It is a bit like a “book report,” but with very special rules! It is a time-honored practice used throughout the legal profession and law schools. As a teaching tool, the case brief forces the student to identify and provide a written description of the most important aspects of a case. Legal precedent, also known as Stare Decisis, is a doctrine which governs much of our legal process. Under the doctrine, a prior court’s decision serves as “authority” for a subsequent court which will address the same or similar issue. Therefore, understanding a court’s decision and the rationale underlying it ---- that is, how the judges arrived at their decision ---- is essential to the study of law. The case brief serves as a very useful vehicle by means of which to analyze and understand judicial decisions. A case brief is a tool by means of which to “capture” or outline the most important aspects of a case. A case brief is not an invitation to re-write the opinion or to paste together quotes from the court’s opinion. The brief should be written in your own words, based on your understanding of the case. Of course, select quotes of the court’s words can be useful, if used sparingly. A case brief should be concise; it should be no more than 1-2 pages. There are at least several different methods or models for writing the case brief; these are based on personal preferences. In the Legal Studies Program, however, the format described here will be used for all of the case briefs which you are required to write in your courses. By using this uniform format, you will gain familiarity with the case analysis and brief writing process. Often, your textbooks will contain synopses of or abbreviated versions of courts’ opinions. When you want to understand a court’s decision, it is essential that you read the entire opinion, rather than a mere summary. Therefore, the first step in the brief writing process is always to thoroughly read the entire case. This includes reading any concurring and dissenting opinions of members of the court. In this regard, be very sure that you are reading the entire opinion! In some internet based sources, the Syllabus (headnotes/summary) of the opinion is presented at one link, the majority opinion is presented at another link, etc. You need to read all portions of the opinion as all of them are relevant to your analysis of the case. For example, if there are strong dissenting opinions based on key legal points, this could predict what the court might decide in the future on similar issues. 1. Case Name and Citation: As a header on the first page of your brief, you should state the name of the case, identify each party’s role in the case, and give the full Bluebook style citation to the case. (See Bluebook resources in the APUS library for more information about Bluebook format.) It is essential that the reader of your case brief know who initiated the litigation and who appealed. For example, in the sample case brief of the Delahanty case (see accompanying materials), Thomas and Jean Delahanty are clearly identified as the plaintiffs (parties who initiated the litigation) and as appellants (parties who sought appellate review of the 1 lower court’s decision). The full Bluebook style citation enables your reader to find the correct legal reporter in which the opinion is found, the volume and page on which the case appears, and the year in which the case was decided. 2. Facts: The Facts section is a short synopsis of the most important facts of the case. “Important” means “relevant” to the issue before the court and to the decision of the court. Your reader needs to know “what happened” to give rise to the litigation and needs to understand the facts which were analyzed by the court. Although other factual details might be interesting, only include them if they give the reader the “big picture” of what the case is about. Be sure to include the nature of the lawsuit and the parties in the lawsuit. The goal in the Facts section is to summarize the facts in such a manner that if someone did not read the court’s opinion, they would understand the facts of the case. 3. Procedural History: The Procedural History section is a summary of previous proceedings between the parties from the time the case was initially filed to the present. This is important because most reported cases are appellate cases in which a previous decision was rendered in a trial court. It is essential that you understand how the case arrived in the court, the opinion of which you are briefing. Indeed, in many case brief assignments, you will brief an Opinion of the United States Supreme Court; in those instances, the case will likely have been in several different courts previously. It is important that you “track” who “won” at each level, and that you understand that the losing party appeals to the next level of court. The Delahanty case is an example of a somewhat unusual case, but the unusual nature of the case is a good illustration of why the Procedural History of the case is so important. The civil lawsuit was filed by the Delahantys in federal court (United States District Court in the District of Columbia). Their case was dismissed and they appealed to the next level of federal court (the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). That federal appellate court needed to obtain the view of the court in the applicable local jurisdiction (the District of Columbia) on a specific legal question. In order to obtain that view, the federal appellate court “certified” the legal question to the local court. The sample case brief is written about the opinion which was rendered by the local court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 4. Issue(s): The issue should be a yes/no question which identifies the specific question the court must decide in order to rule in the case. For example, “Are manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials strictly liable for injuries arising from their criminal use in the District of Columbia?” There may be more than one main issue that the court must decide. If there are multiple issues, the issues should be set forth in a number format, such as “Issue 1”, etc. 5. Holding(s):The Holding section succinctly states how the court answered the issues presented. Typically it includes a yes/no answer followed by the issue presented written in an answer format. It includes the legal principle relied on by the court. If there are multiple issues, there must be a corresponding number of holdings. 2 6. Reasoning: This is a very important part of the brief. The Reasoning section describes why and how the court reached its holding in the case. This may include an application or revision of pre-existing legal principles, policy reasons and/or negative effects resulting from a different court ruling. If there are both a majority and dissenting opinion issued by the court, then this section should be broken down into subsections to reflect those opinions’ analyses. Likewise, if there is a concurring opinion, a brief description should be included in an additional subsection. If there are multiple issues, there must be a corresponding number of subsections within the Reasoning section. 7. Decision: This section gives the Judgment rendered by the court. Describe the final disposition of the case. Did the court affirm the lower court’s decision, reverse it, and/or remand it for additional proceedings? 8. Comments: Is there anything else that should be mentioned about this case? Is it a “landmark” case in the sense that the court significantly changed the law concerned a particular issue? Was the court “divided”? Were there vigorous dissenting opinions? Do you see any weaknesses/discrepancies in the court’s opinions? For example, in the Delahanty sample brief, a useful comment would be that the case is a good example of how appellate courts certify issues to other courts in order to obtain the legal opinion of the other court on a particular issue. 3 Case Citation: Delahanty v. Hinckley, 564 A.2d 758 (D.C. 1989). Parties: Thomas and Jean Delahanty, Plaintiffs / Appellants John Hinckley, Defendant / Appellee Facts: Thomas Delahanty was seriously injured when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley used a “Saturday Night Special” in the assassination attempt that was manufactured by R. G. Industries, a subsidiary of Roehm. Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against John Hinkley, R.G. Industries, the gun manufacturer, Roehm, the manufacturer’s foreign parent company, and individual officers of Roehm, for injuries Appellant Thomas Delahanty suffered when Hinkley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. The District Court dismissed appellants’ complaint against R.G. Industries, Roehm, and individual officers of Roehm for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit certified the question of whether, in the District of Columbia, “manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials may be strictly liable for injuries arising from these guns’ criminal use” to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Issues:   Issue 1: Whether, in the District of Columbia, manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials may be held strictly liable for injuries arising from their criminal use?   Issue 2: Whether established theories of tort law in the District of Columbia provide a cause of action against gun manufacturers and distributors for injuries arising from the guns’ criminal uses?   Holdings: Issue 1: No. Manufacturers and distributors of Saturday Night Specials are not strictly liable for injuries arising from these guns’ criminal use. Issue 2: No. Established theories of tort law in the District of Columbia do not provide a cause of action against gun manufacturers and distributors for injuries arising from the guns’ criminal uses. Reasoning: Appellants advanced the following three theories in support of their position: Issue 1: a. Strict liability for sale of defective product The court rejected this theory of liability because appellants put on no evidence that the weapon Hinkley purchased and later used in the assassination attempt was in any way defective. Rather, appellants argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn of the dangers of criminal misuse of the gun. The court found this argument unpersuasive, pointing out that a manufacturer has no duty to warn because the dangerous nature of guns self-evident. b. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity Appellants argued that the manufacturer should be held liable because the Saturday Night Special is “inherently and abnormally dangerous with no social value. The “abnormally dangerous activity” doctrine had never been applied to gun manufacturers in the District of Columbia. The Court rejected this application of the doctrine, since selling weapons is not an abnormally dangerous activity “in and of itself.” In response to appellants’ reliance on Kelly v. R.G. Industries, 304 Md. 124, 497 A.2d 1143 (1985), the court stated that it is not just cheap guns that may potentially by used to commit crimes, and that the Maryland legislature had specifically overridden the Kelly decision. Issue 2: While the general rule is that no tort liability exists for harm resulting from the criminal acts of third parties, an exception sometimes comes in to play when a special relationship exists between parties. Examples of such “special” relationships include landlord / tenant, hospital / patient, and school / student relationships. The court declined to extend this special relationship status to gun manufacturers and sellers / gun purchaser, as Appellants neither argued that any special relationship existed, nor suggested any way that gun manufacturers could prevent their gun purchasers from misusing the purchased gun for criminal acts. Decision: Affirmed. The court answered the certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Traditional tort theories, such as negligence and strict liability, provide no basis for holding a gun manufacturer liable for injuries caused by a buyer of the gun to a third party. Comment: This case gives a good example of how appellate courts may certify issues to other courts (either lower or in different jurisdictions) for opinions. In this case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (federal appellate court) certified the issue to a Washington D.C. court because it presented a question of local law, not federal law.   Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT THOMAS K. DELAHANTY, et al., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR., et al., APPELLEES No. 88-488 District of Columbia Court of Appeals 564 A.2d 758; 1989 D.C. App. LEXIS 199; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P12,273 July 13, 1989, Argued October 11, 1989, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] On Certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit certified a question to decide whether appellees, a manufacturer, its parent company, and officers, that made a handgun known as a "Saturday Night Special" were liable for injuries to appellants arising from such a gun's criminal use. OVERVIEW: Appellants filed an action against the manufacturer, its parent company, and officers, alleging liability arising out of the criminal use of one of the "Saturday Night Special" guns made by the manufacturer and used by appellee shooter. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss to the manufacturer, parent company, and officers, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court of appeals certified the question concerning liability. The court held that appellants could not hold the manufacturer liable on a theory that the manufacturer had a duty to warn because the potential danger of a gun was generally known and recognized. The court held that appellants could not hold the manufacturer liable on a theory of abnormally dangerous activity because the manufacture and marketing of a handgun, in and of itself, did not directly result in the injury. The court rejected the theory that it should impose liability on the manufacturer based on a theory that a "Saturday Night Special" had no social utility beyond being used for criminal activity. The manufacturer was not liable for negligence because the harm resulted from the criminal act of a third party. OUTCOME: Upon review of the certified question, the court determined that there was no basis for holding appellees liable for appellants' injuries. CORE TERMS: gun, manufacturer, abnormally, handgun, dangerous activities, cause of action, strict liability, marketing, duty to warn, misuse, theory of liability, legitimate purposes, special relationship, strictly liable, certified question, imposes liability, unreasonably dangerous, high degree, certain class, concealable, inexpensive, distributors, manufacture, unreliable, outweigh, firearms, chattels, cheap, shot LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Appeals > Appellate Jurisdiction > Certified Questions [HN1] When considering a certified question, the court is not limited to the designated question of law but may exercise its prerogative to frame the basic issues as it sees fit for an informed decision. Page 2 564 A.2d 758, *; 1989 D.C. App. LEXIS 199, **1; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P12,273 Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Weapons > General Overview Torts > Products Liability > Duty to Warn [HN2] There is no duty to warn when the danger, or potentiality of danger, is generally known and recognized. Because hazards of firearms are obvious, the manufacturer has no duty to warn. Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Weapons > Licenses > Businesses > General Overview Torts > Strict Liability > Abnormally Dangerous Activities > General Overview [HN3] The cause of action for abnormally dangerous activity applies only to activities that are dangerous in themselves and to injuries that result directly from the dangerous activity. The doctrine does not apply to the marketing of handguns. The marketing of a handgun is not dangerous in and of itself, and when injury occurs, it is not the direct result of the sale itself, but rather the result of actions taken by a third party. Any high degree of risk of harm, or any likelihood that such harm would be great, would result from the use, not the marketing of the handgun. Torts > Negligence > Duty > Affirmative Duty to Act > Special Relationships > General Overview Torts > Premises Liability & Property > Lessees & Lessors > Liabilities of Lessors > Negligence > General Overview [HN4] In general no liability exists in tort for harm resulting from the criminal acts of third parties, although liability for such harm sometimes may be imposed on the basis of some special relationship between the parties. Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Offenses > Weapons > Use > Simple Use > Elements Torts > Negligence > Duty > Affirmative Duty to Act > Special Relationships > General Overview Torts > Premises Liability & Property > Lessees & Lessors > Liabilities of Lessors > Negligence > General Overview [HN5] Plaintiffs cannot state a negligence claim against gun manufacturers for injuries resulting from criminal misuse of a gun absent a special relationship with the gun manufacturers and absent a reasonable means for gun manufacturers to screen the purchasers of their guns to prevent criminal misuse. COUNSEL: Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., with whom Robert Cadeaux and James Taglieri were on the brief, for appellants. Frank G. Jones, with whom Ben Taylor was on the brief, for appellees. JUDGES: Newman, Ferren, and Belson, Associate Judges. OPINION BY: FERREN OPINION [*759] Thomas and Jean Delahanty, appellants, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against John Hinckley for injuries Thomas suffered when Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. The Delahantys also sued the manufacturer of the gun, R.G. Industries, Inc., its foreign parent company, Roehm, and individual officers of Roehm. Appellants advanced three legal theories for holding the gun manufacturers liable in these circumstances: negligence, strict products liability under the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A (1965), and a "social utility" claim apparently based on strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities under RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 519, 520 (1977) and, somewhat differently, on the cause of action adopted in Kelley v. R.G. Industries, [**2] 304 Md. 124, 497 A.2d 1143 (1985). Appellants alleged in their complaint that: Hinckley needed an easily concealable weapon for his assassination attempt; the gun manufactured by Roehm and R.G. Industries, Inc., is an easily concealable, inexpensive handgun; the gun is poorly constructed, unreliable, and therefore not useful for legitimate purposes such as military use, target practice, or self-defense; as a result of the gun's low price, it is used for criminal purposes; and the manufacturers knew of the gun's criminal uses. The District Court dismissed appellants' complaint against the gun manufacturers and their officers for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for Page 3 564 A.2d 758, *759; 1989 D.C. App. LEXIS 199, **2; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P12,273 the District of Columbia Circuit sua ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

hello, kindly find the attached completed work. Thank You.

Thesis statement: The Attorney General issued an order to tackle the implementation and
application of the Controlled Substance Act concerning Oregon Death with Dignity Act,
declaring that using regulated drugs to aid suicide is an illegal medical practice and any medic
instructing use of drugs for that purpose is against the law.

1.Introduction
2. Body
i.

Issues
a) Issue 1: Will Medics be responsible for any prescription of the regulated drugs to aid
suicide under the Oregon law?
b) Issue 2: Does the Act allow the Attorney General to forbid medics from administering
regulated drugs used in aiding suicide?

3.Conclusion


Running Head: CASE CITATION

1

Case Citation
Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date

CASE CITATION

2

Case Citation: Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243(...

NicholasI (27052)
UCLA

Anonymous
Solid work, thanks.

Anonymous
The tutor was great. I’m satisfied with the service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors