Choose a case brief from each section but complete a total of 4 briefs. Attached is an example of how it should be written and a template. Thank you!

ACCESS AND PRIVILEGE

- Garland v. Torre (1958)

- Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

- Houchins v. KQED (1978)

- Shoen v. Shoen (1995)

- Wilson v. Layne (1999)

- Earnhardt v. Volusia County (2001)

- Doe v. Gonzales (2007)

FAIR TRIAL/FREE PRESS - A

- Lindbergh kidnapping trial (Bruno Hauptmann)

- Irvin v. Dowd (1961)

- Rideau v. State of Louisiana (1963)

- Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

- Dickinson v. U.S. (1972)

FAIR TRIAL/FREE PRESS - B

- Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)

- Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

- Chandler v. Florida (1981)

- CBS v. U.S. District Court(1984)

- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada(1991)

- People v. Bryant(2004)

@& safari File FEdit View History Bookmarks Window Help @) @ Q & MonSep30 2:26PM eee M- @ myclassroom.apus.edu M+ O m Week Five: Case Study Analysis https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d... u Dashboard Mi New message from Corrine Lewi... Mi Inbox (172) - gmatz@udel.edu -... % Dashboard How to Brief a Case Using the \"IRAC\" Method 'When briefing a case, your goal is to reduce the information from the case into a format that will provide you with a helpful reference in class and for review. Most importantly, by \"briefing\" a case, you will grasp the problem the court faced (the issue); the relevant law the court used to solve it (the rule); how the court applied the rule to the facts (the application or \"analysis\"); and the outcome (the conclusion). You will then be ready to not only discuss the case, but to compare and contrast it to other cases involving a similar issue. Before attempting to \"brief\" a case, read the case at least once. Follow the \"IRAC\" method in briefing cases: Facts\" 'Write a brief summary of the facts as the court found them to be. Eliminate facts that are not relevant to the court's analysis. For example, a business's street address is probably not relevant to the court's decision of the issue of whether the business that sold a defective product is liable for the resulting injuries to the plaintiff. However, suppose a customer who was assaulted as she left its store is suing the business. The customer claims that her injuries were the reasonably foreseeable result of the business's failure to provide security patrols. If the business is located in an upscale neighborhood, then perhaps it could argue that its failure to provide security patrols is reasonable. If the business is located in a crime-ridden area, then perhaps the customer is right. Instead of including the street address in the case brief, you may want to simply describe the type of neighborhood in which it is located. (Note: the time of day would be another relevant factor in this case, among others). Procedural History* 'What court authored the opinion: The United States Supreme Court? The California Court of Appeal? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? (Hint: Check under the title of the case: The Court and year of the decision will be given). If a trial court issued the decision, is it based on a trial, or motion for summary judgment, etc.? If an appellate court issued the decision, how did the lower courts decide the case? Issue 'What is the question presented to the court? Usually, only one issue will be discussed, but sometimes there will be more. What are the parties fighting about, and what are they asking the court to decide? For example, in the case of the assaulted customer, the issue for a trial court to decide might be whether the business had a duty to the customer to provide security patrols. The answer to the question will help to ultimately determine * This applies to case briefs only, and not exams. Use the IRAC method in answering exams: Issue/Rule/Analysis/Conclusion. L JOL R0 @& safari File FEdit View History Bookmarks Window Help @) @ Q & MonSep30 2:26PM eee M- @ myclassroom.apus.edu M+ O m Week Five: Case Study Analysis https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d... u Dashboard Mi New message from Corrine Lewi... Mi Inbox (172) - gmatz@udel.edu -... Dashboard whether the business is liable for negligently failing to provide security patrols: whether the defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care, and what that duty of care is, are key issues in negligence claims. Rule(s): Determine what the relevant rules of law are that the court uses to make its decision. These rules will be identified and discussed by the court. For example, in the case of the assaulted customer, the relevant rule of law is that a property owner's duty to prevent harm to invitees is determined by balancing the foreseeability of the harm against the burden of preventive measures. There may be more than one relevant rule of law to a case: for example, in a negligence case in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff assumed the risk of harm, the relevant rules of law could be the elements of negligence, and the definition of \"assumption of risk\" as a defense. Don't just simply list the cause of action, such as \"negligence\" as a rule of law: What rule must the court apply to the facts to determine the outcome? Application/Analysis: This may be the most important portion of the brief. The court will have examined the facts in light of the rule, and probably considered all \"sides\" and arguments presented to it. How courts apply the rule to the facts and analyze the case must be understood in order to properly predict outcomes in future cases involving the same issue. What does the court consider to be a relevant fact given the rule of law? How does the court interpret the rule: for example, does the court consider monetary costs of providing security patrols in weighing the burden of preventive measures? Does the court imply that if a business is in a dangerous area, then it should be willing to bear a higher cost for security? Resist the temptation to merely repeat what the court said in analyzing the facts: what does it mean to you? Sumimarize the court's rationale in your own words. If you encounter a word that you do not know, use a dictionary to find its meaning. Conclusion 'What was the final outcome of the case? In one or two sentences, state the court's ultimate finding. For example, the business did not owe the assaulted customer a duty to provide security patrols. Note: \"Case briefing\" is a skill that you will develop throughout the semester. Practice will help you develop this skill. Periodically, case briefs will be collected for purposes of feedback. At any time, you may submit your case brief(s) for feedback. L NOL R0 ' Pages File Edit Insert Format Arrange View Window Help @) @ Q & MonSep30 2:27PM - @ Law Brief Example 125% v o= @ @ u] & B View Zoom Insert ~ Table Chart Text Shape Media Share Format Document BNEOS=SO United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation et al. 12 F. 2d 614 (1926) FACTS: The US is charging Zenith with violating Section 1 of the Radio Act of 1912. On Dec. 19, 1925, Zenith operated a station that was not in accordance with its license. It also violated the terms of its license on several other occasions. Specifically, Zenith was licensed to operate only on Thursday nights from 10 to 12 pm CST and then only when GE's Denver station wasn't using the wavelength. Zenith readily admitted its violations. ISSUES: Did Zenith violate the terms of its license? Does the Secretary of Commerce and Labor have the authority to specify terms? DECISION/RESULTS: No! No. RATIONALE/REASONS: Section 1 stated that violation of the Act was a misdemeanor. The penalty for violation was a $500 fine. Section 2 stated that the license would specify the wavelength, the hours of operation and the power (range) of the station. Section 4 gave the Secretary of Commerce and Labor the power to enforce Section 2. The penalties for violation were a $100 fine. Repeated violations could lead to the license being revoked. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor had no authority to create regulations. The regulations were specified in Section 4 (the case quotes the first, second twelfth and fifteenth regulations from Section 4). The court found that Zenith was in violation of the fifteenth regulation. However, Section 2 does not specify how the Secretary of Commerce and Labor should determine hours of operation. Nothing is said to give the Secretary the discretion to decide between two stations wanting the same hours. When a statute is ambiguous, no violation is possible. NOTE: none PHILOSOPHY: Constructionist. The Court looked at the "plain" meaning of the Act saying, "Reference has been made to the rule of practical construction. It is sufficient to say that administrative rulings cannot add to the terms of an act of Congress and make conduct criminal which such laws leave untouched." THEORY: Ad hoc balancing theory. The Court is trying to weigh the various sections of the Act Nothing selected. Select an object or text to format. ' ' Pages File Edit Insert Format Arrange View Window Help @) @ Q & MonSep30 2:27PM r @ Law Brief Example 125% v [ &= @ @ = u] & B View Zoom Insert Table Chart Text Shape Media Share Format Document which such laws leave untouched." THEORY: Ad hoc balancing theory. The Court is trying to weigh the various sections of the Act in balance to see if they give the Secretary any leeway in terms of enforcement. IMPACT: Chaos! The Courts had essentially said that the Act was poorly written and that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor couldn't punish anyone for violating the restrictions of their license. As a result, Congress was forced to deal with the problem and the Radio Act of 1927 was passed. This Act created a temporary agency, the Federal Radio Commission, empowered to bring order to the spectrum. After one year, power was to revert back to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. It never did. The 1927 Radio Act was tested in court and held up well. In 1933 FDR looked at government involvement in communications and saw that several agencies Nothing selected. Select an object or text to format. were involved. He formed a committee which recommended that one Federal Agency should oversee all of communications. This led to the 1934 Communication Act and the enabling of the FCC. The 1934 Communications Act contained much of the court tested 1927 Act. Retrieved from: http://people.bethel.edu/~socsco/MediaLaw/HooverZenithbriefs.htm LIl I LT T 1o