Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr 14, 551 P.2d 334 (1976) See, e.g., https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Tarasoff.pdf

Case Brief Assignments Read the FULL Opinion (On-line/Law Library) Sections of Brief 1. "Case Name." 2. "Court Delivering Opinion" 3. "Citation" 4. "Facts" 5. "Procedural History" 6. "Issues" 7. "Decision" 8. "Reasoning" 9. Dissenting or Concurring Opinion 10. "Comments" Section is Important Case Briefs must be typed, single-spaced and printed single- sided. The section headings must all be included. If the court opinion is unanimous, the "Dissenting or Concurring Opinion" section must still be included to confirm that there were "None" Case Brief Guidelines The "Reasoning" section must include a discussion of the legal principle that the Court applied to reach its decision. It is not intended as merely a recitation of facts and/or conclusions. It must also address the legal principle that the Court applied to those facts to reach its conclusion Sample Case Brief Student's Name] BLW 2510 Katzenbach v. McClung Supreme Court of the United States 379 U.S. 294 (1964) Facts Ollie McClung was the owner of Ollie's Barbecue ("Ollie's"), a restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama. Ollie's had seating capacity for 220 customers, but only white customers were permitted to dine in. There was take-out service for black customers. Ollie's was located on a state highway 11 blocks from an interstate highway, and farther from the bus and train stations. In the year prior to the case, 46% of Ollie's total purchases were meat from a local supplier who procured it from outside of Alabama. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the "Act") prohibited discrimination in providing goods or services in places of public accommodation. McClung sued seeking an injunction to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice, headed by Attorney General Katzenbach, from enforcing the Act against the restaurant, Procedural History A three-judge District Court found that a "substantial portion" of the food served in the restaurant had moved in interstate commerce, but granted the injunction against enforcement. The District Court held that there was no demonstrable connection between the food sales at Ollie's and Congress' conclusion that regulation of local activity was warranted to protect interstate commerce. Slide 4

Sample Case Brief Issue Did Congress properly exercise its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate local business activity to protect interstate commerce? Decision The District Court was reversed and the injunction vacated. Reasoning Justice Clark delivered the Opinion for the majority. The initially observed that there was no issue of the State of Alabama authorizing the segregation nor of any significant number of interstate travelers patronizing Ollie's. The dispute was, thus, narrowly focused on whether it was a proper exercise of Commerce power to regulate a restaurant that purchased less than $70,000 of supplies which moved in interstate commerce. The majority recounted that there were extensive Congressional hearings before the Act passed, and found that Congress had ample basis to conclude that discrimination obstructed or impaired interstate commerce: The majority recounted that there were extensive Congressional hearings before the Act passed, and found that Congress had ample basis to conclude that discrimination obstructed or impaired interstate commerce: We believe that this testimony afforded ample basis for the conclusion that established restaurants in such areas sold less interstate goods because of the discrimination, that interstate travel was obstructed directly by it, that business in general suffered, and that many new businesses refrained from establishing there as a result of it. Hence, the District Court was in error in concluding that there was no connection between discrimination and the movement of interstate commerce. Slide 5

Sample Case Brief The majority next recounted the breadth of Congressional power to regulate commerce, including the settled power to regulate local activities under the Commerce Clause. The majority cited approvingly to, e.g., Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (regulate local activity to protect commerce from aggregate impact); U.S. v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941) Fair Labor Standards Act upheld on indirect impact on interstate commerce). The combination of extensive hearings and broad authority to regulate interstate commerce, the majority concluded: "Congress acted well within its power to protect and foster commerce in extending the coverage of Title II only to those restaurants offering to serve interstate travelers or serving food, a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce." Dissenting or Concurring Opinions Concurrence by Justice Black: Concurred in the judgment if the Court, but cautioned that the threat to commerce must be real, rather than an isolated incident, to warrant an exercise of commerce power. Concurrence by Justice Douglas: Argued that the ruling should have been made on the 14th Amendment and not just commerce clause because discrimination against of people was more important than the movement of goods across state lines. Concurrence by Justice Goldberg: Also urged that the decision should have been based on the 14th Amendment and issue of "human dignity" rather than economics. Comments I agree/disagree ..................................... Slide 6Sample Case Brief The majority next recounted the breadth of Congressional power to regulate commerce, including the settled power to regulate local activities under the Commerce Clause. The majority cited approvingly to, e.g., Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (regulate local activity to protect commerce from aggregate impact); U.S. v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941) Fair Labor Standards Act upheld on indirect impact on interstate commerce). The combination of extensive hearings and broad authority to regulate interstate commerce, the majority concluded: "Congress acted well within its power to protect and foster commerce in extending the coverage of Title II only to those restaurants offering to serve interstate travelers or serving food, a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce." Dissenting or Concurring Opinions Concurrence by Justice Black: Concurred in the judgment if the Court, but cautioned that the threat to commerce must be real, rather than an isolated incident, to warrant an exercise of commerce power. Concurrence by Justice Douglas: Argued that the ruling should have been made on the 14th Amendment and not just commerce clause because discrimination against of people was more important than the movement of goods across state lines. Concurrence by Justice Goldberg: Also urged that the decision should have been based on the 14th Amendment and issue of "human dignity" rather than economics. Comments I agree/disagree ..................................... Slide 6

this is the case https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Tarasoff.pdf