Description
Case: Lane v. Franks 134 S.Ct. 2369
Components of a Case Brief
Procedural History-no facts
-
Where was case filed, what was the cause of action/ statute
-
What happened at the trial court level
-
Who appealed
-
What happened at the appeals court level
-
Supreme Court granted cert. Statement of Facts-No court actions
-
What did plaintiff do/ what was the time period involved
-
What did defendant do
-
What were the consequences of defendant’s actions on plaintiff
-
Need the facts that the court relied upon to support its’ reasoning
-
Clear and concise
Issue(s)-Always questions, number if more than one Answer(s) to Issue(s) -Short summary of the courts’ holding
-
Yes or No answer
-
One sentence summary-will also appear in the reasoning section
Reasoning
-
WHY the court decided the case the way it did
-
Fully discuss the reasons why the court reached its decision
-
Discuss the thought process by which it arrived at its decision
-
Apply the court’s reasoning to the facts of the case
-
Ensure that the reasoning is directly responsive to the issues
-
Ensure the reasoning answers the WHY question
-
USE YOUR OWN WORDS
Holding
Procedural action taken by the court i.e. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.
Explanation & Answer
Hi, here is your paper. Let me know if you need any clarifications/changes. Thanks and welcome again.
Surname 1
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
LANE V. FRANKS 134 S.CT. 2369
The case of Lane v. Franks 134 S.Ct. 2369 was filed in the Supreme Court of the United
States. The case was argued on April 28, 2014 and decided on June 19, 2014. The statute was the
violation of the First Amendment by Franks, the President of Central Alabama Community
College, by Lane (the plaintiff) for alleged retaliation that violated the first Amendment. Frank
(the defendant) claimed that his speech was of public concern and that he was entitled to
protection by the First Amendment ( Lane v. Franks 134 S.Ct. 2369, 2014).
The defendant’s claims to defend himself from the plaintiff’s claims led to his protection
under the First Amendment. At the trial court level, a summary judgment was granted to Frank
by the District Court, which held that the ...