Branzburg vs Hayes Case Study Assignment

User Generated

glznepebf

Writing

Description

Rubric (15 points):

Submitted on time (3 points)

All components present and easily understood from first read (8 points)

Evidence of analysis (not a cut-and-paste from case) (6 points)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

COMM 4101: MEDIA LAW Practical Writing Exercise One Friday, April 5, 2019 Why study cases to learn the law?  Cases show how real-world situations are affected by controlling law  Show us how judges think about issues  Assist us with predictions  Help us develop analytical tools as we learn the skill of case reading Elements of a Case • Caption • Citation Info • Parties • Court • Date • (Head Notes) • Judge’s Name • Opinion* • Procedural History • Facts • Analysis • Holding *Not every case will follow this exact order but should include most of these elements. The Caption: Court Citation Info Date 12 S.W. 3d 34 Supreme Court of Texas. HETFIELD v. MUSTAINE. Nov. 17, 1981. Appeal from circuit court, Midland county; DARRELL ABBOTT, Judge. Reversed. Parties Case Summary / Headnotes May be found before the main opinion  Contains a brief synopsis of the case  Highlights main issues in the case  NOT a part of the opinion (should not be referenced in argument)   **this portion will be edited out of your textbooks The Opinion  Only the court’s opinion can be used as binding authority  You may see the word “Opinion” to signal the start, or you may see the name of the deciding judge  There are several types of opinions: majority, plurality, concurring, dissenting, per curiam, en banc Concurrences and Dissents Concurrence: “I agree with the end result BUT….” Dissent: “The majority is wrong, BECAUSE… Changes in the law are often foreshadowed in Concurrences and Dissents. They are also excellent examples of legal analysis and argumentation. Do not avoid reading these sections simply because they are not the majority opinion. OPINION: • Procedural History: Follows the lawsuit through the courts (litigation timeline) • Facts of the case: Events leading up to lawsuit which created the conflict • Legal Issues: Significant legal questions in the case • Rules: Specific principles of law • Holdings: The decision (ruling) of the court • Reasoning: The judge’s explanation of her decision Case Analysis Tool – The Case Brief  Purpose: to focus on the important parts of the case in order to obtain a thorough understanding of the case and its reasoning  Goal: a simplified summary of a reported case  A case brief is used by legal researchers to keep track of the cases read and analyzed.  Often briefs serve as the foundation for legal arguments in memoranda or court documents Case Brief Format Case Name Citation  Facts  Procedural History  Issue(s)  Rule(s)  Analysis  Conclusion/Holding You will develop your own briefing style, but follow this format for our class Name and Citation of the Case  Always provide the name and full citation of the case at the beginning of the case brief  This will aid your future reference to the brief and your drafting Facts  Do not include all of the case facts  Include facts that are legally significant and contextual facts that are necessary to understand the legally significant facts  Ask: did this fact affect the outcome of the case? Procedural History  Explains how the case traveled through the courts  First, the reader will want to know who sued whom and why. Then, the reader will want to know what has happened in each of the courts.  Remember, although it is important for the reader to know WHAT happened in each court, they don’t necessarily need to know WHY. Only explain the WHY for the final court, which is the real focus of the case brief. Issue(s)  The issue is the question presented to THIS court for resolution  Each issue should be only one sentence long  Consider starting your issue with either “Did the trial court err in . . . ?” or “The issue is whether the trial court erred in . . .” Rule(s)  The rules section contains the applicable laws the court relied on in the analysis or reasoning.  Remember: this section does not need to include every source discussed by the court, rather just the relevant primary sources Analysis or Reasoning  Lengthiest and most important section!  This section incorporates the information from the facts, issues, and rules into a focused discussion, which helps the reader understand why the court resolved the issues the way it did.  This section provides the court’s rationale, or reasoning supporting its ultimate resolution of the case Holding  This is the court’s answer to the issue or question presented and contains the action taken by the court.  Make this section very short and to the point Let’s practice!  Assignment: Brief Branzburg v. Hayes (begins on page 379)  Submit brief by email to mandy.carter@uncc.edu by 11:59pm on Wednesday, April 10th  Subject line: PWE1_LastName Vocabulary lesson  Subpoena  Grand Jury  Consolidated cases Rubric (15 points)  Submitted on time (3 points)  All components present and easily understood from first read (8 points)  Evidence of analysis (not a cut-andpaste from case) (6 points) Case Brief Assignment (15 points) due by 11:59pm on 4/14/19 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) Facts: Procedural History: Issue(s): Rule(s): Analysis: Conclusion/Holding
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: Branzburg

v. Hayes

BRANZBURG V. HAYES, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

Branzburg v. Hayes

1

Branzburg v. Hayes
Facts
The petitioner, Branzburg, saw that the creation of hashish using marijuana and the court
summoned him to offer implications top the people involved. However, two petitioners,
Caldwell and Pappas took action and covered Black Panthers and later called by the grand jury
was expected to discuss the findings. Upon the arrival regarding the calling, the reporters denied
taking part in the set grand juries whereby they all claimed to have newsman privileges. Despite
some information and evidence revealing that the summoned reporters were directly involved...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags