USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Business Law M33Dr. Jack
Case Brief Project
A) Case Brief: You will be assigned a case during the second week in class. If you have
completed the 5 areas of topical interest in Week 1, chosen from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topic.htm ,that will be used as input to assign
a case to you. You will then research and prepare a written presentation according to
the format below. The written presentation is a 25-point assignment.
B) Research: You are welcome to use any website to research your case and borrow from
them significantly. However, you must cite any website from which you “borrowed”
more than three words; there will be point deductions if you use a website and do not
disclose it on your brief. By no means is your research combined to just “legal”
websites, but some of the most popular legal websites from which students have found
information on the cases are:
1) https://www.oyez.org/
2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/supremes.htm
3) https://law.justia.com/cases/
If you borrow from a website, you have to understand it. So if it refers to other cases,
and you write it in your brief, you will be held to an understanding of what you wrote—
which means that you may have to understand the other case. So, for instance, if your
case involves “zoning” you must understand from your research what zoning means.
Information is freely available online, and Dr. Jack is also a resource for you if you do not
understand something.
C) Organization and Rubrics: The written presentation should be completed as follows:
1) Case citation: this will include where the case can be found in the law library and the
year; see example from Miranda v. Arizona, below (1 point if fully completed).
2) Facts: Brief facts of the underlying dispute (usually found in the first few paragraphs
of the majority opinion or on one of the websites; this is the factual situation of the
dispute itself and its procedural history before it gets to the Supreme Court) (2
points if fully completed). Material can be sourced from the trusted websites listed
above if proper attribution is given.
3) Issue: What was the issue before the court? This is what they were deciding; should
include the constitutional issue or provision over which they had to deliberate. (2
1
points if addressed completely). Material can be sourced from the trusted websites
listed above if proper attribution is given.
4) Holding: What was the holding of the case? (What is the final ruling of the court)?
This should include how they resolved the constitutional issue. (2 points if
addressed completely.) Material can be sourced from the trusted websites listed
above if proper attribution is given.
5) Court opinion school: What “school of jurisprudence” does it appear that the
majority opinion represents and why? This must be drawn from the reasoning
provided in the opinion, not just the result. Our slides in Week 1 outline the
different schools of jurisprudence, and they are covered in your textbook as well.
This should be one paragraph. (3 points if addressed completely—1 point for
identifying a school we have discussed, 1 point for defining that school, and a third
point for your back-up “proof” to show that is that school; a quote or two from the
opinion that supports the definition for the school is the strongest support).
6) Dissenting opinion school: What “school of jurisprudence” does it appear that the
dissenting opinion represents and why? This must be drawn from the reasoning
provided in the opinion, not just the result. If there is no dissenting opinion, find
criticism of the case on the internet and how that could be interpreted to a “school
of jurisprudence” (3 points if addressed completely—1 point for identifying a school
we have discussed, 1 point for defining that school, and a third point for your backup “proof” to show that is that school; a quote or two from the opinion that
supports the definition for the school is the strongest support).
7) Opinion: Do you agree with the utilization of the school of the Court or the dissent
and why? This should be one paragraph, (3 points if addressed completely–1 point
for identifying with one of the schools, another point with describing why this kind
of case should have utilized that school, and an additional point for identifying why
the other opinion’s school was inappropriate to this case).
8) Significance: What is the significance of this case to us in our daily lives today? This
should be one paragraph. (4 points if addressed completely—2 points for discussing
what the holding means for similar situations today, and 2 points for discussing the
impact the holding has on our society beyond the limited set of facts upon which the
holding is based.)
Organization and Appearance (5 points): All papers must have proper attribution for quotes or
material copied from a source. Proper headings and spacing throughout, and your name must
appear on the paper. Papers should also observe all proper capitalization and other syntax and
2
grammar rules and will be held to the minimum expectation that they have been put through
available spell and grammar checks available in word processing programs.
If you have questions about how some of the this should look, please take a look at the
Miranda vs. Arizona Case Brief, below. Your textbook has case briefs that have some similar
aspects; feel free to refer to the textbook.
Here is an example of what those items might look like in your Case Brief Project
1. Case citation: Miranda vs. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
2. Facts: “Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix due to circumstantial evidence that he had
been involved in a kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the charges following a lengthy
interrogation and signed a statement that said the confession was made knowingly and
voluntarily. Miranda never was told of his right to remain silent, of his right to have a
lawyer, or of the fact that any of his statements during the interrogation could be used
against him in court. He objected to the introduction of the written copy of his confession
into evidence at trial, stating that his ignorance of his rights made the confession
involuntary.
When the objection was overruled, Miranda was convicted of the kidnapping and rape at
least in part because of the written confession, and he was sentenced to 20-30 years in
prison. An appeal based on the confession’s allegedly involuntary nature was rejected by
the Arizona Supreme Court.” See https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
3. Issue: The Supreme Court stated the issue as “the admissibility of statements obtained from
an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for
procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.” (pg. 440 of the
opinion, located at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/#tab-opinion1946133 )
4. Holding: “Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes
during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law
enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an
attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either exercised or waived in
a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.” See
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
5. Court opinion school: Identification with the vulnerable is the school of jurisprudence that
seems to be represented in the majority opinion. That school focuses on the fairness in
society for all of us and looks out for disenfranchised groups in particular. The majority
believed that a police interrogation is such an intimidating situation for an accused person
who has not yet been convicted, and the tactics used to extract a confession so inherently
unjust given our Constitution, that greater support was necessary to support our
3
presumption of innocence. They wrote of their concern that unless there were very specific
guidelines regarding custodial interrogations, brutal police tactics could never be entirely
eliminated. They further conceded that such tactics lowered the esteem the public would
hold for the criminal justice system. The Court wrote: “It is obvious that such an
interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual
to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation. To be
sure, this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity. The
current practice of incommunicado interrogation is at odds with one of our Nation’s most
cherished principles — that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.
Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in
custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product
of his free choice.” (Page 457-458 of the opinion, located at:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/#tab-opinion-1946133 )
6. Dissenting opinion school: Like 5, above, but you identify the school of jurisprudence of the
dissenting opinion and follow with your reasoning.
7. Opinion: This should be your opinion of the school of jurisprudence that should be utilized
in handling issues like the one before the court, distinguishing 5 from 6, and choosing
between them. make sure to explain why you chose the school you did for these issues and
why the other is not appropriate for these issues.
8. Significance: Miranda puts the burden on law enforcement in a custodial situation to
apprise those who are arrested of their rights, putting limits on the amount of pressure that
can be exerted on an alleged perpetrator to confess to a crime without the presence of
their counsel. It provides greater support for our constitutional right not to incriminate
ourselves as well as the constitutional principle that we are innocent until proven guilty.
The broader implications are critically important in light of current events. Many feel that
our criminal justice system has embedded systemic racism, meaning that some
disenfranchised groups suffer disproportionately. Miranda may alleviate some of that
systemic racism, if it exists, by giving support for the accused. It does mean, however, that
some people who may be “guilty” may be let free because the police have not
appropriately followed the proper procedures. But that reflects a societal judgment
perhaps that it is better to let one guilty person go free than have unfair procedures that
may take freedoms from many innocent people.
4
Case Brief Project
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Case Citation
1 pts
Facts
2 pts
Issue
2 pts
Holding
2 pts
Court opinion school of jurisprudence
3 pts
Dissenting opinion school of jurisprudence
3 pts
Opinion–which school would you use and why?
3 pts
Significance of the Case
4 pts
Organization and appearance–A full 5 points for following the Project template, maintaining headings and paragraph
structure, effective proofreading, and few if any spelling and grammatical errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 25
