25. Case Analysis
POL 123 – Case Analysis Instructions
The goals of this assignment are to provide a valuable skill and to assess your ability to comprehend and apply case law. Reading, briefing, and applying what you are reading in your textbook and learning in the modules are effective ways to become literate in the process of the U.S. legal system.
Conducting an Analysis
Before making and defending a decision, you must be familiar with the relevant law. For our purposes, your textbook and course material provide all the legal concepts needed to apply the law to a factual situation. Once you are familiar with the general content of the chapter, you should be able to recognize the issue involved in a case and find the legal concepts that will help you decide the case. For your reference, a sample analysis is provided at the end of this document.
First, you will read the assigned fact patterns (provided via a link in the module). Then, you will complete an analysis for all fact patterns presented. Each analysis should contain the following:
1. The main issue. Identify and write (in your own words, at least 50% original) the central issue to be decided. As much as possible, set the issue in legal terms and concepts.
2. Relevant legal concepts quoted from textbook court opinions. Search the assigned chapter for legal concepts that will help you decide and justify your decision. Once you find the quotations you wish to use, copy them into the appropriate places in your analysis.
3. Relevant case law quoted from the textbook.
4. Rationale. Write (in your own words, at least 50% original) a complete explanation about how you
used the legal concepts you cited to make a decision about how the case should be resolved.
5. Ruling. Describe (in your own words, at least 50% original) what should happen to the parties
involved as a result of your decision.
Submit your Case Analysis to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of the assigned module. (The Dropbox baskets for these assignments are linked to Turnitin.)
Grading Rubric
Ratings:
Exceptional corresponds to an A (90-100). Performance is outstanding; significantly above the usual expectations.
Proficient corresponds to a grade of B- to B+ (80-89%). Skills are at the level of expectation.
Basic corresponds to a C- to C+ (70-79%). Skills are acceptable but improvements are needed to meet expectations well.
Novice corresponds to a D to D+ (60-69%). Performance is weak; the skills are not sufficiently demonstrated at this time.
0 This criterion is missing or not in evidence.
Criteria
?
Ratings
Novice
Basic
Proficient
Exceptional
Correctly framing the specific legal question to be decided
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-20
Identifying and quoting relevant material from the assigned chapter
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-20
Correctly applying the cited legal concepts to your decision
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-20
The insightfulness and organization of your rationale
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-20
Originality and writing quality
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-20
Total
100
Academic Honesty
This assignment should include your original work and be treated as a take-home examination. You may copy legal concepts and case law from the textbook into the “Relevant legal concepts” and “Relevant case law” sections, but the rest should be written “in your own words” (at least 50% original). The Dropboxes for all Case Analyses are linked to Turnitin, and each submission will be scanned for originality. Substantial overlap with the writing of other students constitutes academic dishonesty and will result in appropriate sanctions.
Sample Analysis Using Headings
Main Issue (your own words)
Has the State of Kentucky violated procedural due process by depriving inmates of a protected liberty right to prison visitors with our a hearing to challenge a visitor who is banned?
Relevant Legal Concepts From Text (quoted from textbook opinions)
Procedural Due Process – 14th Amendment – Section 1. “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; …” (pp. 28 & 671)
Relevant Liberty Definition: “…a vast scope of personal rights. It also infers the absence of arbitrary and unreasonable government restraints. (p. 29)
“The due process guarantee protects people from unfairness in the operation of both substantive and procedural law.” Procedural law prescribes the method used to enforce legal rights. It provides the machinery by which individuals can enforce their rights or obtain redress for the invasion of such rights.” (p. 29).
Since procedural due process rights cost the government time and money: “Courts generally therefore generally try to balance accuracy against its cost on a case-by-case basis.”
Relevant Case Law from Text (quoted from textbook)
Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe “In cases such as Washington v. Constantineau (1971) and Goss v. Lopez (1975) we held that due process required the government to afford the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular set of facts.” However, “…a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest.” “Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme.” (p. 46)
Rationale (your own words)
Since the State of Kentucky had “…established regulations to guide prison officials in making visitation decisions,.” one could argue that an inmate’s liberty to have visitors has been recognized. It could be further argued that denial of a hearing to challenge the finding that a specific visitor could be barred is protected by due process. However, conducting court hearings requiring an adversary proceeding could be unduly burdensome of the state and the liberty of an inmate has been deprived initially in a procedurally safeguarded hearing. Depravation of the liberty of convicted inmates to have specific visitors is outweighed by the burden of conducting such hearings.
Ruling (your own words)
The State of Kentucky need not provide hearings for denial of inmate visitors.
Sample Case Analysis in Essay Style
The main issue in this case is whether the State of Kentucky violated procedural due process by depriving inmates of a protected liberty right to prison visitors, without a hearing to challenge a visitor who is banned.
This is a due process case. Procedural Due Process is in the 14th Amendment – Section 1. “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (pp. 28 & 671). The relevant definitions here is the definition of liberty: “…a vast scope of personal rights. It also infers the absence of arbitrary and unreasonable government restraints. (p. 29)
“The due process guarantee protects people from unfairness in the operation of both substantive and procedural law.” Procedural law prescribes the method used to enforce legal rights. It provides the machinery by which individuals can enforce their rights or obtain redress for the invasion of such rights.” (p.29) Since procedural due process rights cost the government time and money: “Courts generally therefore generally try to balance accuracy against its cost on a case-by-case basis.
The Court examined this issue in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, stating “In cases such as Washington v. Constantineau (1971) and Goss v. Lopez (1975) we held that due process required the government to afford the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular set of facts.” However, “…a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest.” “Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme.” (p. 46)
Since the State of Kentucky had “…established regulations to guide prison officials in making visitation decisions,” one could argue that an inmate’s liberty to have visitors has been recognized. It could be further argued that denial of a hearing to challenge the finding that a specific visitor could be barred is protected by due process. However, conducting court hearings requiring an adversary proceeding could be unduly burdensome of the state and the liberty of an inmate has been deprived initially in a procedurally safeguarded hearing. Deprivation of the liberty of convicted inmates to have specific visitors is outweighed by the burden of conducting such hearings.
The court should rule in favor of the State of Kentucky.
In this assignment, you will prepare three case analyses based on hypothetical fact patterns. These fact patterns all deal with the topic of due process.
Step 1: Download and thoroughly read the Case Analysis instructions.
Step 2: Download the Case Analysis 2 Fact Patterns. Prepare your responses to each fact pattern based on the instructions.
POL 123 – Case Analysis 2 Fact Patterns
For each fact pattern, specify the essential legal issue(s) involved, describe the legal concepts from the text, decide which side should win, and explain your reasoning and how you used the legal concepts to arrive at your decision. See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing this assignment.
1. Chris Rock v. Larry the Cable Guy
Larry the Cable Guy and Chris Rock decided to go on a “laugh tour” together. They believed that with Larry’s redneck humor and Chris’ urban jokes, they could pack the venues with twice as many fans. They made millions of dollars. Soon thereafter, they split up as an act; however, Larry continued to use some of the material that was written by Chris. While they were a duo act, they had contractually agreed that if they ever broke up, they would not use each other’s material without payment. Larry has not paid Chris anything for the use of his comic material, so Chris is suing him in civil court for breach of contract and asking the court to award him $500,000 in unpaid fees for the use of his material. To notify Larry that he is a defendant in a breach of contract lawsuit, the court has twice attempted to serve a summons and complaint at Larry’s permanent residence. Because Larry frequently travels with his act, he was not found at home. The process server petitioned the court for alternative service and it was granted. Larry was thereby sent the complaint and summons by certified mail, and notification of the suit was also published for two weeks in the local newspaper. Larry knows he has been violating the contract with Chris, and that sooner-or-later he would be sued; therefore, he never accepts certified letters or reads the local paper. Needless to say, Larry never responded to the suit. After six months have elapsed, Chris motioned for a default judgment in his favor for $500,000 and court costs, and this motion was granted. Now Larry is appealing this default judgment because he was not properly notified of the suit against him. In your analysis, discuss whether you would you affirm or reverse the default judgment?
2. W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company
W.R. Reeves filed suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act against his employer, Central of Georgia Railway Company, seeking damages he allegedly suffered when the train on which he was working derailed near Griffin, Georgia. The liability of the defendant railroad was established at trial, and the issue of damages remained to be fixed. Several physicians testified, as did Reeves. On the witness stand, he said that an examining physician had told him that he would be unable to work because of a weakness in his right arm, a dead place on his arm, stiffness in his neck, and nerve trouble in his back. Is the admission of this testimony reversible error (i.e., the testimony should not have been allowed)? In your analysis, be sure to include legal reasoning as to why the testimony should or should not be used.
3. Paris Hilton v.Lindsey Lohan
Paris Hilton, a resident of Beverly Hills, and Lindsey Lohan, a fellow Californian, had an agreement. Lindsey agreed to give Paris the right to party in the VIP lounges of any club in California on Saturday nights. In exchange, Paris would give Lindsey the same right, but on Friday nights. This way, the two would not have to compete for the attention of the paparazzi. Earlier this year, on a day when Lindsey was scheduled to appear in court and possibly be sent to jail, Paris decided to party in California on a Friday. She figured Lindsey could not party due to her court troubles and probable incarceration. Lindsey in fact went to the clubs on Friday, but many of the photographers were already covering Paris and did not have the time to take photos of Lindsey. Lindsey has filed a lawsuit against Paris alleging breach of contract. She heard the kind folks in Texas really liked her, so she filed her lawsuit there to get a favorable jury. The sheriff, a huge fan, was nice enough to drive out to California to deliver the summons and complaint to Paris. Unfortunately, Paris was not home, so he placed it in the mail box, and went on a tour of the stars’ homes. When Paris found the lawsuit, she read it and ripped it into small pieces. Paris has not responded to the lawsuit, and Lindsey has moved for a default and default judgment. The judge doesn’t like Paris, and thinks she is a spoiled brat, so he granted the default judgment. He awarded Lindsey damages in the amount of $100,000. Is he correct? If Paris hires an attorney to respond to the lawsuit, what arguments should she make?