BRIEFING CASES
BY
PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ
WHY DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?
 PROFESSORS
EXPECT IT
 LAWYERS BRIEF EVERY DAY
 THE BEST LEARNING IS ACTIVE
LEARNING
 YOU WILL USE THESE BRIEFS TO
OUTLINE
 IT’S FEEDBACK
HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO
THIS?
 IT’S AN
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
 IT WILL GET EASIER
 THEY WILL GET SHORTER
WHAT DO THEY ENCOMPASS?
 THE







SALAD BAR APPROACH
IDENTIFICATION
FACTS
PROCEDURE
ISSUE
HOLDING (very important)
RATIONALE
EVALUATION
IDENTIFICATION
 NAME
 CITATION
 YEAR
 COURT
 JUDGE
 PAGE/SECTION
OF BOOK
FACTS




EACH RIGHT OR BURDEN DEPENDS ON FACTS
FOCUS ON MATERIAL FACTS (FACTS THAT HAVE
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THEREFORE
INFLUENCE A COURT’S REASONING)
A FACT IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT IF ALTERING OR
ELIMINATING THAT FACT WOULD CHANGE THE
LEGAL CONCLUSION OR RESULT OF THE CASE – IT
IS OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE
DON’T BE AFRAID TO CHARACTERIZE PARTIES
(BUYER, EMPLOYER, ETC.)
PROCEDURE






PARTY WHO BROUGHT ACTION
CLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND RELIEF SOUGHT
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION AND STAGE
DISPOSITION OF INTERMEDIATE COURTS
AUTHORING COURT’S DISPOSITION
ALL THESE FACTS OCCUR AFTER THE
LAWSUIT IS FILED
ISSUE

MATERIAL QUESTION OF FACT AND/OR LAW
THAT ARISES IN A CASE
 MUST BE STATED NARROWLY SO IT
IDENTIFIES THE LEGAL QUESTION THAT
DISTINGUISHES THIS CASE FROM OTHERS
 LAW-CENTERED: WHAT A PARTICULAR LAW
MEANS
 FACT-CENTERED: APPLY A RULE OF LAW TO
THE FACTS OF A CASE
ISSUE (Continued)
 UNDER/DOES/WHEN



FORMAT
UNDER [the law]
DOES [the legal question]
WHEN [important facts exist]
THE HOLDING
 THE
PREDICTIVE RULE OF THE CASE
– ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT
OUTCOMES
 IDENTIFY THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE DECISION
 WHEN THESE FACTS AND THIS LAW
MEET, THEN THIS RESULT
RATIONALE
 THE
LOGIC THAT SUPPORTS THE
HOLDING
 ALLOWS YOU TO PREDICT HOW THE
HOLDING MIGHT BE INFLUENCED BY
DIFFERENT FACTS
 IS THE “WHY” OF THE HOLDING
EVALUATION
 IS
IT CONVINCING? WHY OR WHY
NOT?
 WHAT ARE THE COSTS?
 WERE THE INTERPRETATIONS FAIR?
FAULTY?
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
 Citation:

393 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) 2005.
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
 Facts

City of Toledo passed an ordinance banning
smoking in public places including bars,
restaurants, bowling alleys. A group of
restaurant and bar owners filed suit claiming
that the ordinance constituted a regulatory
taking of their property in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and that the ordinance was in
violation of Ohio law.
D.A.B.E., Inc, v. City of Toledo
 Issue


(s)
Issue 1: Does the ordinance constitute a
regulatory taking in that it denies the property
owner “economically viable use of his land” in
violation of the 5th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution?
Issue 2: Does the state statutes preempt the
City of Toledo ordinance?
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
 Holding:


No to both questions. The ordinance did not
constitute a regulatory taking because it only
limited smoking, not prohibited it and plaintiffs
may have other economic uses for the
property.
The state law was not designed to limit what
cities can do in terms of regulating smoking
and the city ordinance did not conflict with
state law.
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
 Rationale:

An economic taking must almost completely
deny a property owner economic use of their
land. Merely losing customers or profit is not
enough. A smoking room might require a
financial investment but that is not enough to
constitute a taking. The owners could make
other use of their property.
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
 Rationale,

con’t
The state statute nowhere indicates that it
was designed to limit what cities may or may
not do. The city was within its rights to pass
the ordinance and it is not inconsistent with
Ohio law.