BRIEFING CASESBRIEFING CASES

BYBY

PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZPROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ

WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?

PROFESSORS EXPECT ITPROFESSORS EXPECT IT LAWYERS BRIEF EVERY DAYLAWYERS BRIEF EVERY DAY THE BEST LEARNING IS ACTIVE THE BEST LEARNING IS ACTIVE

LEARNINGLEARNING YOU WILL USE THESE BRIEFS TO YOU WILL USE THESE BRIEFS TO

OUTLINEOUTLINE IT’S FEEDBACKIT’S FEEDBACK

HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?THIS?

IT’S AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSIT’S AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IT WILL GET EASIERIT WILL GET EASIER THEY WILL GET SHORTERTHEY WILL GET SHORTER

WHAT DO THEY ENCOMPASS?WHAT DO THEY ENCOMPASS?

THE SALAD BAR APPROACHTHE SALAD BAR APPROACH IDENTIFICATIONIDENTIFICATION FACTSFACTS PROCEDUREPROCEDURE ISSUEISSUE HOLDING (very important)HOLDING (very important) RATIONALERATIONALE EVALUATIONEVALUATION

IDENTIFICATIONIDENTIFICATION

NAMENAME CITATIONCITATION YEAR YEAR COURTCOURT JUDGEJUDGE PAGE/SECTION OF BOOKPAGE/SECTION OF BOOK

FACTSFACTS

EACH RIGHT OR BURDEN DEPENDS ON FACTSEACH RIGHT OR BURDEN DEPENDS ON FACTS FOCUS ON MATERIAL FACTS (FACTS THAT HAVE FOCUS ON MATERIAL FACTS (FACTS THAT HAVE

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THEREFORE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THEREFORE INFLUENCE A COURT’S REASONING)INFLUENCE A COURT’S REASONING)

A FACT IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT IF ALTERING OR A FACT IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT IF ALTERING OR ELIMINATING THAT FACT WOULD CHANGE THE ELIMINATING THAT FACT WOULD CHANGE THE LEGAL CONCLUSION OR RESULT OF THE CASE – IT LEGAL CONCLUSION OR RESULT OF THE CASE – IT IS OUTCOME DETERMINATIVEIS OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE

DON’T BE AFRAID TO CHARACTERIZE PARTIES DON’T BE AFRAID TO CHARACTERIZE PARTIES (BUYER, EMPLOYER, ETC.)(BUYER, EMPLOYER, ETC.)

PROCEDUREPROCEDURE

PARTY WHO BROUGHT ACTIONPARTY WHO BROUGHT ACTION CLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND RELIEF SOUGHTCLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND RELIEF SOUGHT TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION AND STAGETRIAL COURT DISPOSITION AND STAGE DISPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE COURTSDISPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE COURTS AUTHORING COURT’S DISPOSITIONAUTHORING COURT’S DISPOSITION ALL THESE FACTS OCCUR AFTER THE ALL THESE FACTS OCCUR AFTER THE

LAWSUIT IS FILEDLAWSUIT IS FILED

ISSUEISSUE

MATERIAL QUESTION OF FACT AND/OR LAW MATERIAL QUESTION OF FACT AND/OR LAW THAT ARISES IN A CASETHAT ARISES IN A CASE

MUST BE STATED NARROWLY SO IT MUST BE STATED NARROWLY SO IT IDENTIFIES THE LEGAL QUESTION THAT IDENTIFIES THE LEGAL QUESTION THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS CASE FROM OTHERSDISTINGUISHES THIS CASE FROM OTHERS

LAW-CENTERED: WHAT A PARTICULAR LAW-CENTERED: WHAT A PARTICULAR LAW MEANSLAW MEANS

FACT-CENTERED: APPLY A RULE OF LAW FACT-CENTERED: APPLY A RULE OF LAW TO THE FACTS OF A CASETO THE FACTS OF A CASE

ISSUE (Continued)ISSUE (Continued)

UNDER/DOES/WHEN FORMATUNDER/DOES/WHEN FORMAT UNDER [the law]UNDER [the law] DOES [the legal question]DOES [the legal question] WHEN [important facts exist]WHEN [important facts exist]

THE HOLDINGTHE HOLDING

THE PREDICTIVE RULE OF THE CASE THE PREDICTIVE RULE OF THE CASE – ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT – ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT OUTCOMESOUTCOMES

IDENTIFY THE CONSIDERATIONS IDENTIFY THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE THAT WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE DECISIONDECISION

WHEN THESE FACTS AND THIS LAW WHEN THESE FACTS AND THIS LAW MEET, THEN THIS RESULTMEET, THEN THIS RESULT

RATIONALERATIONALE

THE LOGIC THAT SUPPORTS THE THE LOGIC THAT SUPPORTS THE HOLDINGHOLDING

ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT HOW THE ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT HOW THE HOLDING MIGHT BE INFLUENCED BY HOLDING MIGHT BE INFLUENCED BY DIFFERENT FACTSDIFFERENT FACTS

IS THE “WHY” OF THE HOLDINGIS THE “WHY” OF THE HOLDING

EVALUATIONEVALUATION

IS IT CONVINCING? WHY OR WHY IS IT CONVINCING? WHY OR WHY NOT?NOT?

WHAT ARE THE COSTS?WHAT ARE THE COSTS? WERE THE INTERPRETATIONS FAIR? WERE THE INTERPRETATIONS FAIR?

FAULTY?FAULTY?

D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of ToledoD.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo

Citation:Citation: 393 F.3d 692 (6393 F.3d 692 (6thth Cir.) 2005. Cir.) 2005.

D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of ToledoD.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo

FactsFacts City of Toledo passed an ordinance banning City of Toledo passed an ordinance banning

smoking in public places including bars, smoking in public places including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys. A group of restaurants, bowling alleys. A group of restaurant and bar owners filed suit claiming restaurant and bar owners filed suit claiming that the ordinance constituted a regulatory that the ordinance constituted a regulatory taking of their property in violation of the U.S. taking of their property in violation of the U.S. Constitution and that the ordinance was in Constitution and that the ordinance was in violation of Ohio law. violation of Ohio law.

D.A.B.E., Inc, v. City of ToledoD.A.B.E., Inc, v. City of Toledo

Issue (s)Issue (s) Issue 1: Does the ordinance constitute a Issue 1: Does the ordinance constitute a

regulatory taking in that it denies the property regulatory taking in that it denies the property owner “economically viable use of his land” in owner “economically viable use of his land” in violation of the 5violation of the 5thth Amendment to the U.S. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Constitution?

Issue 2: Does the state statutes preempt the Issue 2: Does the state statutes preempt the City of Toledo ordinance?City of Toledo ordinance?

D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of ToledoD.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo

Holding:Holding: No to both questions. The ordinance did not No to both questions. The ordinance did not

constitute a regulatory taking because it only constitute a regulatory taking because it only limited smoking, not prohibited it and plaintiffs limited smoking, not prohibited it and plaintiffs may have other economic uses for the may have other economic uses for the property. property.

The state law was not designed to limit what The state law was not designed to limit what cities can do in terms of regulating smoking cities can do in terms of regulating smoking and the city ordinance did not conflict with and the city ordinance did not conflict with state law.state law.

D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of ToledoD.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo

Rationale:Rationale: An economic taking must almost completely An economic taking must almost completely

deny a property owner economic use of their deny a property owner economic use of their land. Merely losing customers or profit is not land. Merely losing customers or profit is not enough. A smoking room might require a enough. A smoking room might require a financial investment but that is not enough to financial investment but that is not enough to constitute a taking. The owners could make constitute a taking. The owners could make other use of their property. other use of their property.

D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of ToledoD.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo

Rationale, con’tRationale, con’t The state statute nowhere indicates that it The state statute nowhere indicates that it

was designed to limit what cities may or may was designed to limit what cities may or may not do. The city was within its rights to pass not do. The city was within its rights to pass the ordinance and it is not inconsistent with the ordinance and it is not inconsistent with Ohio law. Ohio law.