INSTRUCTIONS:

Your case brief assignment is as follows: Using the assigned case facts, prepare ONE Modified Case Brief (different from regular case brief as it requires your personal perspective, see instructions and sample below), similar in structure to the sample case brief of Bad Frog Brewery and rubric in the two pages following, including headers, identifying Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. However, in addition to identifying and listing the Facts, Issue and Rule, you are to prepare ur own original Application of the facts applying the law to the facts to answer the issue(s) identified, and you are also to come up with your own original Conclusion, meaning how would you rule on the Issue you identified?

Modified Case Briefs Description, Rubric

Understanding case law is essential to success in any law related class. Consequently, students will provide an analysis of three assigned cases to help their development and understanding of the legal issues presented. These case analyses, better known as 'case briefs,' will help students develop legal issues spotting techniques and provide an overview of how law applies to specific fact patterns.

The case briefs should be written in the following format, and see sample case brief following:

1. Facts: The facts briefly indicate (1) the reasons for the lawsuit, (2) the identity and arguments of the parties, and (3) the lower court's decision (if applicable). This should be a summary that demonstrates your written communication and explanation skills. (15 points)
2. Issue: The issue is the question before the court. The issue must be phrased as a question. Cases often have more the one issue (i.e., the court answers more than one question). If so, those questions should be listed here in chronological order. This section is meant to demonstrate your critical thinking skills as it requires identification of the central issue(s) between the parties and a clear statement of what the issue is. (15 points)
3. Rule: The rule is simply the law the court uses to answer the question presented in the issue. This section requires the student to use critical thinking skills to identify the law that the court should consider in this case and clearly state it. Word for word re-statement is fine here. (15 points)
4. Application: This section requires you the student to apply the rule to the facts to answer the question presented in the issue. In brief, the application provides the reason(s) for your decision on the Issue identified. This part should be the longest as you are applying the facts to the law, as it is worth the most. Critical thinking skills are again required here as the students must take the facts as given and apply the law that is given to them. You will be graded by your ability to demonstrate the application of given facts to the laws that govern the issue, and your writing skills in conveying this application or analysis of the facts with the law. (30 points)
5. Conclusion: Your decision on how to the resolve the Issue identified, after your application of the law to the facts. You must answer the issue presented based on your application of the law to the facts. You will be graded on how clear your response is based on the applicable law and facts. (15 points)

* * * Modified Case Brief Sample * * *

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority (1998) (p. 81),

(with Application and Conclusion modified to author's own personal views on how the author would rule if they were the judge.)

FACTS	Bad Frog Brewery wants the NYSLA to approve an application to allow BFB to sell its alcoholic beverages in New York. The NYSLA denied BFB's application in part because of the label of a frog "giving the finger," as NYSLA didn't want to allow such beverages to be in grocery stores exposing children to such graphic labels. BFB filed lawsuit in federal district court challenging NYSLA's ruling, and the federal court sided with NYSLA. BFB is appealing the federal district court's ruling to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. BFB argues that NYSLA's denial of BFB's application in protection of children is overly isolated as it applies to labels on a product children can't even purchase, and there are less restrictive alternatives to advancing the same state interest of protecting children from vulgarity.
ISSUE	Was the NYSLA's denial of BFB's application for a liquor license proper? Was the federal district court's ruling supporting the NYSLA denial proper?
RULE	"A state must demonstrate that its commercial speech limitation is part of a substantial effort to advance a valid state interest, not merely the removal of a few grains of offensive sand from a breach of vulgarity."
APPLICATION	If I were a judge in this case, I would apply the law to the facts as follows: the state of New York, through the NYSLA, is trying to advance a state interest of "preventing exposure of children to vulgar displays," by banning the sale of BFB's alcohol with the label of a frog giving the middle finger. While I do see that there is a valid state interest of protecting children from vulgarity, the denial of BFB's use of such labels was "excessive," for a few reasons, including that many of the BFB bottles would be sold in in bars and taverns where minors will not frequent, and if they do enter, they will enter with parental supervision. As far as more common areas like grocery stores, I think less intrusive actions can be taken, such as restricting areas within the grocery store, including the liquor area, to people adult age only.
CONCLUSION	Based on the above, I would choose to side with BFB, and return the case to the lower court, since NYSLA did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives to the ban, which I think was excessive.