international economic policies impact , sociology homework help

Anonymous
timer Asked: Apr 4th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $25

Question Description

Assignment Instructions

brief and concise form the nature of the issue at hand, the judicial opinion, and the ruling (Krislov, 1972).

Weeks 3, 5 and 8, you will be required to submit a case brief of the assigned case. Each brief represents your analysis of the assigned case. Each brief is worth 16% of your overall grade in the course. Grades for these papers will reflect a combination of form, logic, flow, grammar, spelling, APA format, and demonstrated understanding of principles. These case briefs of 4-6 [double spaced] pages each, when completed, should help your develop your critical thinking/analysis skills. These must be submitted during the week assigned. Late papers will result in the automatic loss of a letter grade.

A very good reference, entitled How to Brief a Case, addressing the pertinent content of a brief but not the form or sequence to be used in this class can be found on the John Jay College website located at:

http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/

Utilize the Brief Template format provided. All attachments must be submitted in Word format. No other formats are accepted as all faculty may not be able open the attachment and thus not be able to grade it. If you see a numerical score of “1” for the brief, this indicates the faculty member was unable to open your attachment and you must resubmit your work in Word format for a grade. Your work is considered late and late penalties apply until your work is submitted in the proper format to faculty.

Krislov, S. (1972) Judicial process and constitutional law. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE Name and Citation of Case: Decision: Describes the final action of the court (e.g., reversed, remanded, affirmed, vacated, etc.) How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: Fact Summary and Legal History: Facts are exactly that – the record of the dispute established in the courts below. Why is there a controversy? Major Question (s) or Issue(s) Presented by the Case: All judicial opinions are framed around what the court believes to be the core questions presented by the case before it. Each decision, thus, focuses on and authoritatively answers the issues treated by the court. Summary of the Court’s Reasoning in Reaching the Answer: Each decision focuses on and authoritatively answers the questions and issues raised by the court. The disposition of these matters is largely the basis of stare decisis – the doctrine of precedent. This doctrine holds that similar cases should be treated similarly. This gives the law a measure of continuity and certainty. Precedent also limits the discretion of judges. In this section of the brief, you reconstruct and summarize in your own words the central reasoning (or argument) used by the court to answer the issues it addresses. Much of the written opinion will not be directly germane in that it will deal with subsidiary points – points not directly CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE relevant to the core issue at hand. This subsidiary discussion is called obiter dicta, and has a number of interesting uses. However it is irrelevant to the disposition of the issue at hand in the specific case before the court. Summary of Significant Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: The reasoning in all concurring opinions should be summarized in this section of the brief. Justices can concur in the majority of position in one of two ways, and precisely how they concur is very important. First they can concur in the opinion of the court. This means that they agree with the reasoning used in the majority in settling the issue in the case. Second, they can concur in the judgment of the court. This means that they agree with the result of the majority’s disposition of the case (e.g., reverse, affirm, etc.), but for reasons different from those offered by the majority. Because of this disagreement with the reasoning of the majority, the votes of these justices do not count as an endorsement of the result reached by that opinion. Traditionally, the establishment of a controlling doctrine requires that at least five members of the court agree to the reasoning offered by the majority. You will find that, over time, not only do written concurrences increase, but that their centrality to the meaning in of any given court decision (e.g., Does it establish a precedent binding on lower state and federal courts?) grows more important as well. They are als significant indicators of the decision-making dynamics on the court (e.g., coalitions, voting behaviors, tensions over the substance and direction of the doctrinal development). As such, you want to track these opinions very closely. CMRJ601 Brief X Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). YOUR NAME TODAYS DATE Sometimes there are justices who do not agree with either the reasoning used or result reached by the majority. These justices write to express the basis of their disagreement with the majority. The reasoning in all dissenting opinions should be summarized in this section of the brief. Significance: What Does This Opinion Mean for the Law? This section of the brief discusses why the case is important. For example, it can not significant deviations from past doctrine or the extensions of previous doctrine. Given the focus of the class, it is also useful to note in your brief who writes which opinions, and who joins which blocs. Shifts in judicial alignments will often influence the outcome of a given case or string of cases. Personal Interpretation and Substance? This section of the brief permits you to offer your own personal opinions which should bet be reflected in the balance of the brief. Reference(s): The case and supporting materials/matter you utilized in completing this brief. All references listed here, as well as citations utilized to support/document your work above must be in APA format based on the 6th edition of the APA manual. The text that appears below the above line should not be included in your submitted work. This template was developed from Krislov’s Judicial Process and Constitutional Law (1972). CMRJ601 Brief X YOUR NAME Name v. Name, Volume Source Page (Court Date). TODAYS DATE Krislov, S. (1972) Judicial process and constitutional law. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co. CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE Name and Citation of Case: Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Decision: Ordinances in general scope with dominant features are a valid excuse/use of authority. Zoning thus is a valid use of the police powers of local and county governments as they bear a rational relation to the health and safety of a community. How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majority opinion was written by Justice Sutherland and was joined by Chief Justice Taft, Justice Brandeis, Justice Sanford, Justice Holmes and Justice Stone. (Berg-Andersson & Roza, 2010) There appears to be no concurring opinion in this case. The dissenting opinion consisted of Justice Van Devanter, Justice McReynolds and Justice Butler. (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926) Fact Summary and Legal History: Ambler Realty Co. (Ambler) owned a 68 acre tract of land within the city limits of Euclid, OH (Euclid). Euclid in 1922 adopted an ordinance that established a comprehensive zoning plan that impacted the tract owned by Ambler. Ambler believed the enactment of this ordinance significantly and negatively impacted the potential value and use of their tract and believe the ordinance thus consisted of an unlawful “seizure” depriving Ambler of liberty and property without due process. (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926) 1 CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE Major Question (s) or Issue(s) Presented by the Case: As stated in the Justice Sutherland’s (1926) written opinion, “Is the ordinance invalid, in that it violates the constitutional provision “to the right of property in the appellee by attempted regulations under the guise of the police power, which are unreasonable and confiscatory”?” Is the broad and sweeping ordinance set forth by Euclid in this case a constitutional use of municipal powers? Summary of the Court’s Reasoning in Reaching the Answer: The court concluded that this Ambler’s argument was not based upon an identified present infringement or denial of a specific right but rather upon a broad speculation the existence of such an ordinance and it’s potential enforcement adversely affected the value of the tract and the opportunities to develop, market and sell or otherwise utilize the tract. The court concluded that such a challenge would force the court to scrutinize, analyze and examine each and every provision, line, and sentence to determine if any component or subcomponent of the ordinance may, if challenged specifically, be deemed unconstitutional. This was something the court refused to undertake. The court concluded, as stated in Justice Sutherland’s written opinion, that the Euclid ordinance “… in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them.” (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926) Summary of Significant Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: Internet searches failed to locate a concurring or dissenting written opinion concerning this case. References were located that indicated Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds and Butler dissented with Justice Sutherland’s written opinion. (Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926; Berg-Andersson & Roza, 2010) 2 CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE Significance: What Does This Opinion Mean for the Law? This opinion clearly established the constitutionality of the concept of zoning and the police powers of the local government. It established that an ordinance forming a comprehensive zoning plan was clearly within the right of local governments in that it bears a direct relation to a government’s need, want, duty and ability to care for the welfare, health and safety of the community. This decision strengthened the emerging concept/practice of zoning and helped to define the broad and sweeping police powers of a local government. In addition, it established that general broad, sweeping challenges to such an ordinance or comprehensive plan will not be entertained by the court while at the same time specific challenges to particular provisions contained in an ordinance or comprehensive plan may/will be entertained by the court. Personal Interpretation and Substance? I feel the court struck a balance in that while broad general challenges that consist of mere speculation or potentials, such as ifs, will not be entertained, specific challenges that have a basis in grounds, evidence, or other substance may/will be entertained by the court. This demonstrated that challenges consisting of essentially nothing more than guesses or a general “we just don’t like it” are not sufficient to bring forward to the court but challenges that have solid and specific arguments could/would be heard. There is a reasonableness to such an opinion that strikes a balance between substance and speculation. The court demonstrated understanding that while such a comprehensive plan may accidentally or unfortunately exclude a business or entity not intended for exclusion from specific area, this unintended consequence does not invalidate the constitutionality of the specific ordinance or 3 CMRJ601 Brief 1 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co. Dr. Chuck Russo DATE comprehensive plan or the broad and sweeping police powers of the local government in safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of its community. Reference(s): Berg-Andersson, R. & Roza, T. (2010, August 08). Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/JusticesUSSC.html FindLaw. (n.d.). Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=272&invol=365 Village of Euclid, OH v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). 4 ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

wambuiguama
School: UC Berkeley

Hello! Please find the answer to this question attached. Let me know if you need anything else regarding the question.

CMRJ601 Brief X

YOUR

NAME

Stephen Gregory (Respondent) v. Teresina, Appellant 103 (February2, 1918)
TODAYS DATE
Name and Citation of Case:
Gregory (cop) v. Martinez (crime victim), 462; 103 A.24 (1918)
Decision:
The Court makes a reverse of the verdict made by the lower court (District Court) supportive of the
appellant because he was described as a public official. The decision was based on the rule of law.
As stipulated in the U.S law, a public officer cannot claim or get payment or compensation for
undertaking a responsibility of his occupation as a subject of public rule and ethics. Though, it isn't
in contradiction of the public rule get compensation for performing his legal duty provided that the
Parliament authorizes a law providing the compensation to the community as a whole in furtherance
of some public policy (LawNerds, 2003).
How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting:
This was an appeal of a case. Therefore, no concurrences are available neither the dissents for the
case. Since there was no jury involved during the initial case, the verdict was based on favor since
the cop had a connection with the office of the prosecutor and thus, lack of jury implies there were
no opinions from the majority. The majority opinion in the District Court was represented by the
final judgement by the prosecutor and that the cop should be rewarded since he performed work
and accomplished the task as he had agreed with the defendant.
Fact Summary and Legal History:
There e...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thanks, good work

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