法學教學講義-如何簡要地介紹一個案例中英文版11

HowDoYouBriefACase?FACTSPinpointthedeterminativefactsofacase,i.e.,thosethatmakeadifferenceintheoutcome.Yourgoalhereistobeabletotellthestoryofthecasewithoutmissinganypertinentinformationbutalsonotincludingtoomanyextraneousfactseither;ittakessomepracticetopickoutthedeterminativefacts,sodon’tgetdiscouragedifyoumissthemarkthefirstfewtimes.Aboveall,makesureyouhaveclearlymarkedtheparties’namesandpositionsinthecase(Plaintiff/DefendantorAppellee/Appellant).ProceduralHistoryRecordwhathashappenedprocedurallyinthecaseupuntilthispoint.Thedatesofcasefilings,motionsofsummaryjudgment,courtrulings,trials,andverdictsorjudgmentsshouldbenoted,butusuallythisisn’tanextremelyimportantpartofacasebriefunlessthecourtdecisionisheavilybasedinproceduralrules—orunlessyounotethatyourprofessorlovestofocusonproceduralhistory.IssuePresentedFormulatethemainissueorissuesinthecaseintheformofquestions,preferablywithayesornoanswer,whichwillhelpyoumoreclearlystatetheholdinginthenextsectionofthecasebrief.HoldingTheholdingshoulddirectlyrespondtothequestionintheIssuePresented,beginwith“yes〞or“no,〞andelaboratewith“because…〞fromthere.Iftheopinionsays“Wehold…〞that’stheholding;someholdingsaren’tsoeasytopinpoint,though,solookforthelinesintheopinionthatansweryourIssuePresentedquestion.RuleofLawInsomecasesthiswillbeclearerthanothers,butbasicallyyouwanttoidentifytheprincipleoflawonwhichthejudgeorjusticeisbasingtheresolutionofthecase.Thisiswhatyou’lloftenhearcalled“blackletterlaw.〞ApplicationThisisthemostimportantpartofyourbriefasitdescribeswhythecourtruledthewayitdid;somelawprofessorsdwellonfactsmorethanothers,somemoreonproceduralhistory,butallspendthemosttimeonthecourt’sreasoningasitcombinesallpartsofthecaserolledinone,describingtheapplicationoftheruleoflawtothefactsofthecase,oftencitingothercourt’sopinionsandreasoningorpublicpolicyconsiderationsinordertoanswertheissuepresented.Thispartofyourbrieftracesthecourt’sreasoningstepbystep,sobesurethatyourecorditwithoutgapsinlogicaswell.Concurring/DissentingOpinionYoudon’tneedtospendtoomuchtimeonthispartotherthanthepinpointtheconcurringordissentingjudge’smainpointofcontentionwiththemajorityopinionandrationale.ConcurringanddissentingopinionsholdlotsoflawprofessorSocraticMethodfodder,andyoucanbereadybyincludingthispartinyourcasebrief.WhatYouNeedCasebookPaperandpenorcomputerAttentiontodetailsASampleCaseBriefStudentsofGVPT439Av.McIntosh0U.S.02004PARTIES:

AgroupofUniversityofMarylandcollegestudents(appellants)filedsuitagainsttheirinstructor,McIntosh(appellee).LEGALPROCEEDINGS:

Thisisacivilcase.Appellantsareseekingreliefintheformofrevisedgradesandpositivelawschoolevaluations.Thecourtsbelowissuedconflictingrulings.TheU.S.DistrictCourt(MD)ruledinfavoroftheappellants,butrefusedtoreachtheconstitutionalissue.TheU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsforthe4thCircuitreversedtheDistrictCourt,rulingthatappelleeMcIntoshwasendowedwithspecialrightsthatoutweighedtheFirstAmendmentrightsofpetitionerstudents.Thestudentsappealed,andtheU.S.SupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari.ASampleCaseBrief(continued)FACTS:

Thefactsapparentlyarenotindispute.StudentswereaskedtoreadanddiscussseveralCourtcasesovertwoclassperiods.Theyrefused,insteadengaginginadialogueoversomeunrelatedpolitical/legalphenomena.McIntoshsubsequentlyissuedfailinggradesfortheentireclassandrefusedtowriteanyprofessionallettersofreference.ASampleCaseBrief(continued)LEGALPROVISIONS:

ThestudentsclaimthatMcIntoshabridgedtheirFirstAmendmentrighttoengageinmeaningfuldissentandtodiscusspoliticalissuesoftheirownchoosing.McIntoshcounter-claimsthattheNinthandTenthAmendments,asappliedtohim,outweighthestudents'speechrights.Inaddition,hearguesthattheweightoflocationalanalysisintheCourt'sFirstAmendmentjurisprudenceisinhisfavor--classroomrestrictionsonspeechareentirelyreasonabletime,placeandmannerlimitations.

Aliteralreadingoftheamendment'slanguagewouldalsomeanthatfreespeechisnotrelevanttoauniversityclassroomunlessitinvolvesanactofCongress.

Finally,McIntoshcitesarecentlydiscovered(anneverpublished)Federalistpaper(#86),allegedlyauthoredbyJamesMadison,thataddressesspecificallythequestionofclassroomspeech,concludingthatuniversityinstructorsshouldbeconsideredunquestionedmastersoftheirrespectivehouses.ASampleCaseBrief(continued)ISSUE:

Towhatextentmayagovernment-employededucatorpreventstudentsfromspeakingaboutissuesunrelatedtothesubjectmatterofaparticularcourse?

DECISION:

AffirmingtheAppellateCourtruling,theSupremeCourt(8-1)ruledinfavorofappelleeMcIntosh.ASampleCaseBrief(continued)REASONS:

ChiefJusticeKatzwroteforthemajority.Thoughsomewhatvague,theCourtseemstorelyonseveralsourcesofrationaleforitsdecision.Towardthespecificissueofthecase,classroomspeech,thecourtreliesonprecedentsuggestingthatstudentspeechmayberestricted,ascensorshipbyaninstructorconstitutesareasonabletime,placeandmannerrestriction.Onthebroadermatter,theCourt'snewsweepingpowersundertheFirstandFourteenthAmendments,thejusticesappeartohingetheirdecisiononthefollowing:First,astatementattributedtoChiefJusticeKatz,"TheConstitutioniswhatthejudgessayitis,"whichsuggestsbroadinterpretivepowersfortheSupremeCourt.Second,theCourtemploysastricttextualconstructionoftheFirstAmendmentwhichmentionsonlyalimitationonCongress.Finally,initsreferencetothemysteriousFederalist86,theCourtappearstoplacesomerelianceontheoriginalintentoftheframers.ASampleCaseBrief(continued)RULEOFTHECASE:

Onthematteratissue,theCourt,citingPontificalv.TwentyUnnamedGraduatingSeniors(450US29,2000),ruledthatstudents'speechmayberestrictedtothecontentofacourse.TheCourt,however,tooktheopportunityofthiscasetogoconsiderablyfurther.Itruled,inessence,thattheSupremeCourtmayrestrictandevencoercespeechandthatonlyCongressissubjecttothelimitationsoftheFirstAmendment.Insodoing,theCourthas,apparently,inonefellswoop,overturnedmostofitsFirstandFourteenthAmendmentprecedents.ASampleCaseBrief(continued)CONCURRINGANDDISSENTINGOPINIONS:

Therewerenoconcurrences.DissenterEvansseemedsomewhatconfused.SampleAnswer:

(2021)紫民初字第681號TitleandCitation李作洋訴陳國文民間借貸糾紛案(2021)紫民初字第681號Facts2007年12月21日，被告向原告借款，并出具借條。借條顯示借款數額大寫為肆萬元，小寫為45000元。被告逾期未歸還本息，遂涉訴。SampleAnswer:

(2021)紫民初