Question Description

Choose your assignment:

Option #1: Brief Walters v. YMCA on p. 468-470.

Option #2: Brief Browning v. Poirier on p. 489-491.

For both options, use pages 29-30 for reference. Your brief should be 1 to 2 pages in Times New Roman font, 12 point. In your brief, you should include the following information:

  • Identify the parties.

Possible questions to answer would be: Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?

  • What is the history of the case?

Possible questions to answer would be: Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision? Please note that this is the history of the case in court—not the facts of the case.

  • What are the facts?

Possible questions to answer would be: What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue? What facts did the Court find relevant in its decision?

  • What is the plaintiff’s theory?

Possible questions to answer would be: Why he thinks he should win? What facts does the plaintiff think are important?

  • What is the defendant’s theory?

Possible questions to answer would be: Why she thinks she should win? What facts does the defendant think are important?

  • What is the legal issue?

Tip: this will be a question that can be answered with yes or no and should end with a question mark.

  • What is the holding of the Court?

Tip: this will be either yes or no and will answer the legal issue.

  • What is the reasoning of the Court?

Possible questions to answer would be: what facts and laws did the Court rely on to decide the case?; why was the case decided in the winner’s favor?; why did the other side lose?

  • Evaluative Question for Reflection: What do you think about this case? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?

Rubric

MG260 Case Study (3)

MG260 Case Study (3)

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent

25.0 to >23.0 pts

Content is focused and specific; correctly identifies all the brief elements–parties, history, etc. Legal issue is clearly identified.

23.0 to >19.9 pts

Content is clear but in limited places has a shifting focus or lacks specificity; correctly identifies the legal issue; most of the remaining brief elements are correct

19.9 to >17.4 pts

Content is clear, but in multiple places has shifting focus and lacks specificity. Legal issues are identified but not in clear or specific in detail; the remaining brief elements are correct with some mistakes

17.4 to >14.0 pts

Content is unclear, inconsistent, or incomplete; legal issue is not correctly identified; few of remaining brief elements are correct

14.0 to >0 pts

Content is unclear and limited; legal issue is not correctly identified or is missing; most remaining brief elements are incorrect

25.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis

15.0 to >13.4 pts

Presents an exemplary and thorough analysis; answers questions with logical, concise, and clear reasoning

13.4 to >11.9 pts

Presents an insightful and thorough analysis; answers questions with logical reasoning

11.9 to >10.4 pts

Presents a thorough analysis; understandable answers to questions

10.4 to >5.9 pts

Makes at effort at analysis, but reasoning is unclear or inconsistent; answers to questions are not thorough or consistent

5.9 to >0 pts

Superficial or incomplete analysis or makes no effort at analysis; answers to questions are irrelevant or incomprehensible

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppearance (Grammar/Readability)

10.0 to >8.9 pts

No more than 1 grammar error; effective word choice and sentence variety; superior facility with the conventions of standard written English; ideas are developed logically with flow between sentences and paragraphs

8.9 to >7.9 pts

Few grammar errors (< 3); competent word choice and sentence variety; competence with the conventions of standard written English; ideas expressed with clear overall organization

7.9 to >6.9 pts

Some grammar errors (4-7); word choice and sentence structure are unvaried; average familiarity with standard written English; ideas loosely organized with inadequate transitions; some ideas are illogical or unrelated

6.9 to >3.9 pts

Grammar needs work (8-10 errors); poor word choice and sentence structure; below average familiarity with standard written English; ideas are not coherently expressed; overall organization is lacking

3.9 to >0 pts

Frequent grammar errors (>10); significant problems in word choice or sentence structure; ideas not developed or organized; uneven or ineffective overall organization

10.0 pts

Total Points: 50.0