G., washburn should not be convicted of robbery). Rule rule the main rule on which you rely in reaching your conclusion. Rule Proof rule Proof Explanation of the rule and reasons given by the court for why this rule is the law in the jurisdiction. Tools for Rule Proof. Citation to authority. Describe how Authority Stands for Rule.
Assistant, professor of, legal, research writing, lWI
Here refers to clients case. There refers to precedent. Structuring Proof of a conclusion of Law. Pac structure C: Conclusion. P: Prove explain rule by (a) citing authority, (b) describing how traditional authority stands for rule, (c) discussing subsidiary rules, (d) analyzing policy, (e) counter-analyses. A: Apply rules elements to facts with aid of (a) subsidiary rules, (b) supporting authority, (c) policy, (d) counter-analyses. C: Restate conclusion if discussion complicated. Conclusion conclusion of law a determination of how law treats certain facts. In predictive writing, it can be expressed as a prediction (e. G., washburn is not likely to be convicted of robbery). In persuasive writing, it can be expressed as a recommendation (e.
G., thirty-three apples but 183 students). Edit out contractions such as couldnt or isnt. refer to parties in case law by role not name. Do not use proper names when discussing case law. Refer to the parties in a published case generically; characterize them the in terms of their real-life roles (father/son; landlord/tenant; purchaser/seller; plaintiff/defendant). Discuss case law in past tense. G., the court held.
Avoid words like obviously, clearly, and definitely, especially where the point you are making is not. Keep a neutral and objective tone. Avoid informal style in the text of your memo:. Edit out inappropriate abbreviations. For example, dont refer to the state as with Ill. and dont refer to the plaintiff. Write out numbers requiring just one or two words (e.
look at other legislative activity on subject. court decisions: look at lower court decisions. compare your case to cases raising analogous issues in related areas. Probe the Broader Context: do history, sociology, economics, psychology, etc. Office memos 30, format: Discussion Tidbits:. Order elements discussed (see discussion below). Is your memo written in an appropriate style? avoid referring to yourself: Dont say, according to my research or in my analysis or according to my research because the reader knows the memo is based on your research and analysis.
Legal, english in Hong Kong, professor
Could other arguments be made? Are questionable assumptions made? Are the conclusions gym justified? What other conclusions could be reached? What are the likely consequences of this decision to parties? Has the majority answered all the dissents arguments? Writing the Brief Analysis (contd) read for jurisprudence-imagine how different approaches would affect the outcome:.handwriting
Law and Economics. Critical Legal Studies. Writing the Brief Analysis (contd) read for rhetoric style: tone (assertive, objective, humorous, angry) word choice (bias). Writing the Brief Analysis (contd) Examine the legal Context: legislative: look at purpose of statute. look at predecessor statute.
Rule Proof: advertising and trade are limited to solicitation for patronage. Works of fiction and satire outside bounds. Rule Application: Sitcom is fictional comedic presentation so analogous to hampton. Writing the Brief Judgment: Dismissed. Writing the Brief Analysis your questions and critical evaluation, such as: id argument type (Rule-based, case.
Based, normative, institutional, narrative)-consider counterarguments. Writing the Brief Analysis (contd) ask questions:. How is problem identified? Are there other ways to characterize the problem? Are terms defined fairly? Are the facts presented accurately? Is authority characterized properly? Is reasoning clear logical? Are there unstated reasons for the decision, perhaps related to the identity of the parties?
Legal, english in Hong Kong, professor, michael Hor (1
Rule: ny doesnt recognize common law right to privacy. Rule Proof: roberson held so (rejecting Harvard. Article theory) In reaction, ny civil Rights Law sec. Writing the Brief Issue. Under ny civil Rights Law sec 50 51, does a person have a valid claim, where his name and likeness are used roles in a sitcom without his written consent? Writing the Brief Holding ii issue: Under ny civil Rights Law sec 50 51, does a person have a valid claim, where his name and likeness are used in a sitcom without his written consent? The statute only covers use of a living persons name or likeness for advertising or trade. In contrast, this is a fictional comedic presentation. Rule: Statute only covers use of a living persons name or likeness for advertising or trade.
Writing the business case Brief Facts pl alleges character george in seinfeld sitcom is based on him w/out his permission (same last name; short, bald, fat; friend of seinfeld from college; from queens) Pl alleges this portrayal is humiliating (George is a self-centered loser). Writing the case Brief Issue. Format: Under specific law, is specific legal issue where important facts? Writing the case Brief Issue i (contd). Under ny common law, does a person have a valid claim for breach of the right of privacy, where his name and likeness are used in a sitcom without his written consent? Writing the Brief Holding i format: Decision. Writing the Brief Holding I (contd) Issue: Under ny common law, does a person have a valid claim for breach of the right of privacy, where his name and likeness are televised without his written consent? Ny doesnt recognize a common law right to privacy. Writing the Brief reasoning.
the case Brief Parties. guy (pl) v comedian allegedly using his likeness in sitcom (def). Writing the case Brief Procedural History. Motion to dismiss claim for damages under ny common law ny civil Rights Law sec.
Law is not neatly stated. Exercise: hierarchy of Authority 6,. Types of legal reasoning best see lw mindmap. Class 4: n n briefing cases office memoranda. Helpful for analogizing or distinguishing cases. Cheat sheet for Qs in class. Helps study for exams in common law class. Process of Writing a case Brief. Read case once for big picture make margin notes (e.
Legal, writing at duke law School duke university
Advertisements, legal Writing Professor year Gary Chodorow beijing Foreign Studies University semester. Sources of Law their hierarchy. Overview of Ct Systems 3, stare decisis 4, is Stare decisis a good Doctrine? Stability certainty in the law. Certainty in the law. Judicial efficiency and credibility weaknesses:. Bad precedent is binding. Common law evolves too slowly.