case problem ans writing assigment.

question:

1. Facts

2. Issuea

3. Holding

4. Rational

1. Asiana flight 214 crash-landed at San Francisco airport on July 6,
2013. Three girls from China were killed and 182 people were injured,
some seriously. The flight was carrying 141 Chinese, 77 South
Koreans, 64 Americans, three Canadians, three Indians, one
Japanese, one Vietnamese, and one person from France. The
Montreal Convention is an international treaty that governs
compensation to airline passengers. It offers international
passengers five options for where to sue: where they live, their final
destination, where the ticket was issued, where the air carrier is
based, and the air carriers principal place of business. Under the
treaty U.S. citizens will probably be able to sue in the United States.
Passengers that are not U.S. citizens will probably have to file their
claims in Asia and elsewhere, where lawsuits are rarer, more difficult
to win, and provide smaller recoveries. Asiana can try to use the U.S.
legal doctrine of forum non conveniens to argue that the Asian
victims cases should be tried in Asia because all parties are based
there. In U.S. courts, it is common to receive $5 to $10 million for the
death of a child, close to $10 million for becoming a quadriplegic, and
$1 million for breaking bones. By comparison, in another case a
South Korean court ordered an airline to pay a total of $510,000 to a
woman for the deaths of her daughter, son-in-law, and three
grandsons. A South Korean attorney who has represented crash
victims said that family members who sued in the United States
settled for as much as 100 times more than those who sued in South
Korea. A South Korean government agency expects Asianas
insurers to pay out about $175.5 million total$131 million to replace
the plane and another $44.5 million to passengers and the city of San
Francisco for damage to the airport. Why do the judgments vary so
much depending on where the suit is filed? Is this just? Why or why
not? [See Courts Will Treat Asiana Passengers Differently, USA

this is the sample case

Sample Case Brief: Brown v. Board of Education Case Name and Citation: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) Facts: Black children had been denied admission to their community public schools which were only attended by white children under the State segregation laws in several places, including Topela, Kansas where Brown resided. The tang ble factors that schools rely upen to function were equalized or are being equalized, although the plaintffs argued ther would never receive the same public education in the black schools. This was acknowledged through a lack in motivation and educational and mental development because of the contant inferiority imposed by segregation. The black students sought admission to the white schools. Issues: Whether the fourteenth Amendment permitted the "separate but equar" doctrint, and whether the educational environments of the plaintiff were equal to their white counterparts. Holding: The doctrine of 'separate but equar was unconstitutional under the fourteenth Amendment fqual Protection Clase and the students were ordered to gain admission to white public schools in which ther had applied for and been denied admission. Rationale: The court found that the doctrines of separate but equal educational facilities "are inherently anequal." Thus, no mannee of equalized segregation could ever reach the demand imposed by the fqual Protection Clause of the 14B Amendment. Education had changed so substantially in the time since the fourteenth Amendment was passed that its price interpretation in Plesyy. Ferguson is no longer valid, Further, Segregation has inherent inequalites for chldren, and these inherent inequalties have detrimental effects of the black children of segregated schools limiting the long term abilities as cititens, This is what the 14p Amendment sought to prohibit, and does in the case, therefore the plaingiffs and all other children should not be denied admission to a public school simply on the basis of race. Having reached thas conclusion for public education, the court then extended the reach of the prohibition of separate but equal to all aspects of society. Thus, the court directly overtumed the supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson which sanctioned the doctrine as constitutional in 1895 . Dissenting/Concurring Opinions: None