Ch 49 EOC Writing Assignment The defendants are approximately 80 tenants of a 300-unit luxury apartment building on the upper east side of Manhattan. The monthly rents in the all-glass-enclosed building, which won several architectural awards, were very high. The landlord brought a summary proceeding against the tenants to recover rent when they engaged in a rent strike in protest against what they viewed as deteriorating conditions and services. Among other things, the evidence showed that during the period in question, the elevator system made tenants and their guests wait interminable lengths of time, the elevators skipped floors and opened on the wrong floors, a stench emanated from garbage stored near the garage and mice appeared in that area, fixtures were missing in public areas, water seeped into mailboxes, the air conditioning in the lobby was inoperative, and air conditioners in individual units leaked. The defendant-tenants sought abatement of rent for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Did the landlord breach the implied warranty of habitability? Solow v. Wellner, 150 Misc.2d 642, 569 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1991 N.Y. Misc. 169 (Civil Court of the City of New York) Written work must follow this format: • Must be in Legal Memo Format; • Times Roman 12 point font; • 1 - inch margins; Complete sentences; • Answer the question completely; • Grades are based on CONTENT. Memorandum To: Professor Jones From: Bill Jones RE: United States v. Virginia Date: February 14, 2020 Question Presented What is the legal question presented in this case? What crimes have been committed? Short Answer What was the Courts decision? Statement of Facts There are two types of facts to include here: (1) Procedural history. This is the “story” of the case’s progress in the courts, from the time the plaintiff filed its complaint in court, to the appeal to the court that made the final decision in the case. (2) Legally relevant facts. These are the events giving rise to the parties’ dispute that the court found necessary to its decision. Omit other facts. HINT: You will probably not know which facts are legally relevant until you have read the entire case and understand its holding. Therefore, to avoid an overly long Facts section, write the Facts portion of your case brief last. Discussion This the court’s answer to the Issue posed in the case. A weak statement of the discussion of the sample Issue above would be “no.” Although a “yes” or “no” holding might be technically correct, it may not be helpful. For example, if your professor asks you for the holding of Doe v. Doe, she is not asking for a simple “no” answer. Instead, incorporate into your Discussion the language of your Issue and the main factual reason why the court answered the Issue the way it did. Your Discussion should stand on its own. (For example, a good discussion of the above Issue would be, “The attorney-client privilege does not apply to the inmate’s communications with the `jailhouse lawyer’ because the inmate did not believe that the `jailhouse lawyer’ was an actual attorney.”) Conclusion Probably the most important part of the case brief, the Conclusion section describes how the court resolved the Issue. Make sure to summarize all the logical steps the court took in reaching its Discussion. Keep in mind that the court’s rationale can come from several different sources, including case precedent, something particular in the facts, and/or public policy. 2 Memorandum To: Professor Jones From: Bill Jones RE: Dixon and Hinton v. United States Date: March 1, 2015 Question Presented What crimes have Dixon and Hinton committed? Short Answer Bribery Statement of Facts The city of Peoria received federal block grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The purpose for the grants was the rehabilitation of residential structures, and community development. The city designated a community based corporation (UNI) to be in charge of administering these grants. UNI solicited bids from contractors to perform the work on those homes that qualified for the program. After soliciting bids it was UNI who awarded the contracts to the winning bidder. Arthur Dixson and James Lee Hinton worked for UNI. Dixon and Hinton had a salary paid for by the Federal government. The entire cost of the rehabilitation program was paid for by the Federal government Ora Logsdon was a contractor that received contract from UNI. Gerald Lilly was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. Bribery prohibits any “public official” from directly or indirectly asking, demanding, soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act. Discussion Ora Logsdon was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. He testified that received ten contracts as part of a deal with Dixson and Hinton. Logsdon said the deal was Dixson and Hinton would award the contracts to him if he paid them 10 percent of the total amount of the contract. Gerard Lilly was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. Lilly testified Dixon told him that if he paid Dixon 10% of the contract price he would receive the contract. Lilly also testified that Dixon and Hinson helped him prepare bids, and told Lilly that submitting the bids was a formality. Lilly testified that after receiving the check for the rehabilitation job he completed he paid Dixson. Dixon and Hinton tried to argue that they weren’t public officials and therefore the bribery charge didn’t apply to their situation. However because Dixon and Hinton received a 2 salary from the Federal government while working for a program entirely funded by the Federal government, they are considered “public officials”. Conclusion Because Dixon and Hinton were public officials, and they both asked for and received kickbacks for the awarding of contracts, they are both guilty of bribery. 3
Purchase answer to see full attachment