PLAW 405 CASE BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS Instructions: You will draft a 1-2-page single-spaced synopsis of 4 different cases found in your textbook. You will briefly explain the facts, issues, holding, and rationale of each assigned case. Formatting: Smith v. Jones, 372 U.S. 24 (1963) Facts: Give the most important facts of the case. Include only the facts that are relevant to the court's reasoning and decision. Issues: Question presented to the court for resolution. Holding: Conclusion or answer of the court to the issue/question presented. Rationale: Reasoning or explanation for the court's ultimate resolution of the case. Specific Case Briefs: Case Brief 1 (Module/ Week 2) o Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2000). Case Brief 2 (Module/Week 4) o Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989). Case Brief 3 (Module/Week 6) o FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). Case Brief 4 (Module/Week 8) o County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (1998). Submit the Case Briefs by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Modules/Weeks 2, 4, 6 and by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of Module/Week 8. Your name Institution Course title Date of submission Case 3: FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) Facts The Federal Election Campaign Act established in 1971 allows disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on the political committees which are given more than one thousand dollars or which spends more than one thousand dollars a year. This is because of have an influence on federal office election. A complaint was filed by a group of voters asking Federal Election Committee to make an order to American Israel Public Affairs Committee to make information demanded by FECA concerning political committee public. Unfortunately, FECA established that AIPAC was not a recognized political committee because its main purpose was not the election of candidates. The plaintiff were a group of registered voters who had asked the defendant, Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to determine whether or not the organization known as American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) was a political committee. This was per particular regulations and reporting requirements stated under the Federal Election Campaign Act for which AIPAC had passed particular spending thresholds. Federal Elections Commission determined that even though AIPAC had crossed the thresholds, it did not need it to make the needed reports considering the fact that the organization was issue-oriented rather than campaign-related. The Plaintiff went ahead to request for a review in the District Court which then granted them a summary judgment for Federal Elections Committee, which was afterwards reversed by the Court of Appeal because of the challenge they received from the government; the government challenged the plaintiff position considering that they did not suffer any injury and in case of any injury they incurred there was no evidence that Federal Elections Committee had to blame for it through their decision. Issue Whether or not the plaintiff had suffered from any injury which could be sufficient to establish standing. In this case they had not since there was no evidence to show it. Holding A statute enacted by the United States Congress allowed an individual to sue for a violation of federal law. This created a right to every individual to accessing certain information. The Federal Election Campaign Act reduces corruption of political committees in different ways. The act provides a limit on the amount political parties, individuals and corporations can use in coordination with a candidate. Rationale There was no clear definition of the guidelines of the members instead they depended on taxpayer standing; whether or not if fell on their zone of interest. This does not offer an efficient ground for one to file a suit. Case 4: County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (1998) Facts Lewis and Brian travelling by a motorcycle were caught in the middle of a high-speed police chase. The chase was at dangerous speed of up to a hundred miles an hour. The chase only stopped when Brian Willard the motorcyclist lost control and the bike tipped over. The sudden stop caught one of the driving policemen unawares and he could not stop in time therefore ended up hitting and killing the passenger Philip Willis. Willis' parent filed a suit against the County's Sherriff Department accusing them of abusing Lewis' right to life through wreck less conduct. After the Petitioner, who is James Smith finished responding to a call, they saw Brian approaching at a very high speed. Stapp yelled for Brian to stop but he passed between the two cars at a very high speed. The police officers were forced to engage into a race in order to stop the over speeding cyclist. The race resulted in tipping over of the cycle. Smith's cars caused severe injuries and death of Lewis after his brakes failing. Issue Whether or not the police officer's driving violation was substantive due to the process when he caused the death of Lewis; during a high-speed chase. Holding The court held that high-speed chases without an intention of harming suspects or placing them in harm's way do not lead to liability. This is according to the fourteenth amendment. The police officer cannot be violate the due process by initiating death of an individual as a result of highspeed aimed at arresting a suspect. Reasoning Since it was a high-speed chase, it is not considered a deliberate intent to harm the victim. The police officer will be considered since he was operating under pressure; expected to make decisions in no time and at the same time be able to exercise restraint. The accusation therefore cannot hold up since deliberation needs planning which a high-speed chase does not provide time for. The police officer cannot be blamed for recklessness either since a high-speed chase in itself goes beyond the recommend speed limit but is necessary every once in a while when need arises. In scenarios, especially those involving emergencies, the government is granted a greater leeway. The police officer is part of the government so it applies to him as well. As per the general order, a police officer is required to communicate his/her intention to the sheriff's department dispatch center concerning his/her intention to pursue a vehicle. The defendants hold that Smith did not inform the contact center. The general order needs police officers to determine the extent to which an offense may warrant a high-speed chase. The offense in this scenario was the boys' refusal to stop when a police officer told them to do so. References Babie, P. T. (2016). Property, negligence, and the intergenerational inequity of climate change. Kerr, A. J. (2016). To Consider or to Use? Citation to Foreign Authority and Legal Aesthetics. Your name Institution Course title Date of submission Case 3: FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) Facts The Federal Election Campaign Act established in 1971 allows disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on the political committees which are given more than one thousand dollars or which spends more than one thousand dollars a year. This is because of have an influence on federal office election. A complaint was filed by a group of voters asking Federal Election Committee to make an order to American Israel Public Affairs Committee to make information demanded by FECA concerning political committee public. Unfortunately, FECA established that AIPAC was not a recognized political committee because its main purpose was not the election of candidates. The plaintiff were a group of registered voters who had asked the defendant, Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to determine whether or not the organization known as American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) was a political committee. This was per particular regulations and reporting requirements stated under the Federal Election Campaign Act for which AIPAC had passed particular spending thresholds. Federal Elections Commission determined that even though AIPAC had crossed the thresholds, it did not need it to make the needed reports considering the fact that the organization was issue-oriented rather than campaign-related. The Plaintiff went ahead to request for a review in the District Court which then granted them a summary judgment for Federal Elections Committee, which was afterwards reversed by the Court of Appeal because of the challenge they received from the government; the government challenged the plaintiff position considering that they did not suffer any injury and in case of any injury they incurred there was no evidence that Federal Elections Committee had to blame for it through their decision. Issue Whether or not the plaintiff had suffered from any injury which could be sufficient to establish standing. In this case they had not since there was no evidence to show it. Holding A statute enacted by the United States Congress allowed an individual to sue for a violation of federal law. This created a right to every individual to accessing certain information. The Federal Election Campaign Act reduces corruption of political committees in different ways. The act provides a limit on the amount political parties, individuals and corporations can use in coordination with a candidate. Rationale There was no clear definition of the guidelines of the members instead they depended on taxpayer standing; whether or not if fell on their zone of interest. This does not offer an efficient ground for one to file a suit. Case 4: County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (1998) Facts Lewis and Brian travelling by a motorcycle were caught in the middle of a high-speed police chase. The chase was at dangerous speed of up to a hundred miles an hour. The chase only stopped when Brian Willard the motorcyclist lost control and the bike tipped over. The sudden stop caught one of the driving policemen unawares and he could not stop in time therefore ended up hitting and killing the passenger Philip Willis. Willis' parent filed a suit against the County's Sherriff Department accusing them of abusing Lewis' right to life through wreck less conduct. After the Petitioner, who is James Smith finished responding to a call, they saw Brian approaching at a very high speed. Stapp yelled for Brian to stop but he passed between the two cars at a very high speed. The police officers were forced to engage into a race in order to stop the over speeding cyclist. The race resulted in tipping over of the cycle. Smith's cars caused severe injuries and death of Lewis after his brakes failing. Issue Whether or not the police officer's driving violation was substantive due to the process when he caused the death of Lewis; during a high-speed chase. Holding The court held that high-speed chases without an intention of harming suspects or placing them in harm's way do not lead to liability. This is according to the fourteenth amendment. The police officer cannot be violate the due process by initiating death of an individual as a result of highspeed aimed at arresting a suspect. Reasoning Since it was a high-speed chase, it is not considered a deliberate intent to harm the victim. The police officer will be considered since he was operating under pressure; expected to make decisions in no time and at the same time be able to exercise restraint. The accusation therefore cannot hold up since deliberation needs planning which a high-speed chase does not provide time for. The police officer cannot be blamed for recklessness either since a high-speed chase in itself goes beyond the recommend speed limit but is necessary every once in a while when need arises. In scenarios, especially those involving emergencies, the government is granted a greater leeway. The police officer is part of the government so it applies to him as well. As per the general order, a police officer is required to communicate his/her intention to the sheriff's department dispatch center concerning his/her intention to pursue a vehicle. The defendants hold that Smith did not inform the contact center. The general order needs police officers to determine the extent to which an offense may warrant a high-speed chase. The offense in this scenario was the boys' refusal to stop when a police officer told them to do so. References Babie, P. T. (2016). Property, negligence, and the intergenerational inequity of climate change. Kerr, A. J. (2016). To Consider or to Use? Citation to Foreign Authority and Legal Aesthetics