No. AMC3-SUP 2012
FOR THE APPELLATE MOOT COURT COLLEGIATE CHALLENGE
Jeremy Johnson and Nancy Johnson,
Petitioner,
v.
Rudi Johnson,
Respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to
the Supreme Court Of The State Of Wake
BRIEF FOR THE [PETITIONER/RESPONDENT]
TEAM NUMBER
Lead Attorney
Team members
[Please do not put your college name on the brief. For attorneys, please list name only.]
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Teams should detail the questions presented as ordered when this Court granted the Petition for
Certiorari.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... ii
JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................................
ARGUMENT
AS A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION IN THE STATE OF WAKE,
SHOULD THE COURT EXAMINE THIS CASE UNDER THE “SUBSTITUTED JUDGEMENT” STANDARD OR THE “BEST INEREST”
STANDARD. ..................................................................................................
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 13
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
The Table of Authorities is an alphabetical listing of the cases, constitutional provisions, and
other authorities the team used in the brief. The Table of Authorities is similar to the Table of
Contents in that it is a quick reference tool which allows the reader to find the authorities used by
the team and the pages of the brief on which those authorities are found. Below is an example of
how teams should format the Table of Authorities. Citations to the record need not be included
in the Table.
Cases not cited in your brief should be deleted.
CASES CITED
Bonner v. Moran, 126 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1941) ..........................................................................
Curran v. Bosze, 566 N.E.2d 1319 (Ill. 1990) ...............................................................................
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1943) ..............................................................................
Hart v. Brown, 289 A.2d 386 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1972) .................................................................
In re E.G., 549 N.E.2d 322 (Ill. 1989) ...........................................................................................
In re Guardianship of Pescinski, 226 N.W.2d 180 (Wis. 1975) ....................................................
In re McCauley, 565 N.E.2d 411 (Mass. 1991) .............................................................................
In re Richardson, 284 So.2d 185 (La. App. 1973) ........................................................................
Little v. Little, 576 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979) .................................................................
McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C. 90 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1978) ..............................................................
O.G. v. Baum, 790 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. App. 1990) ........................................................................
Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969) .................................................................
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) .................................................................................................
iv
v
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WAKE
CASE No. AMC3-SUP 2012
JEREMY JOHNSON, and NANCY JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
RUDI JOHNSON,
Respondent.
_______________________________
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
_______________________________
JURISDICTION
The parties agree that as a Court of general jurisdiction, and because of the undisputed residency
of the parties, the General Court of Justice has original jurisdiction over this matter and may sit
over this cause, and that venue in this particular Court is also proper. The parties further agree
that the Court of Appeals for the State of Wake is the appropriate appellate Court for this matter
and exercises sole appellate jurisdiction over the cause. No team shall argue lack of jurisdiction
and/or venue but must include a brief statement of jurisdiction in their brief which reflects this
stipulation.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This section provides the procedural history of the case and should include a brief description of the dispute between the parties, a summary of how the case moved through the court
system (i.e. the date and ruling of each court), and when this Court granted the petition for writ
of certiorari.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
This section should provide a general description of the facts of the case. In the Statement of the Facts, teams should introduce all facts referenced in the argument section. Put another way, no fact that appears later in the brief should be missing from the Statement of the
Facts.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
As the title suggests, this section provides a summary of the team’s argument. The
Summary of the Argument should correspond both to the questions presented and to the headings
in the argument section.
ARGUMENT
This section is the bulk of the brief and lays out, in organized form, the team’s argument. It begins with a point-by-point response to the first question presented, moves into a discussion of the
general principles of the applicable law, and then goes into further detail about why the issue
1
should be resolved in the team’s favor. Next, the brief goes into a second point-by-point response to the second question presented, moves into a discussion outlining the general principles
of the applicable law, and then goes into further detail about why the issue should be resolved in
the team’s favor.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion should include a request that the judgment of the lower court be upheld/reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
Team Number
2