December 1-2, 2011
Agenda
1. Warm Up:
Answer the following on notebook paper:
How do we explain our analysis and prediction of a legal problem in a real world environment
such as a law firm?
2. Turn in your homework: IRAC of the Riggins’ case
3. Go over the homework as a whole class.
4. How to Brief a Case 101 notes (see
-
below)
Accessing West Law
Work as a class to brief the Riggins’ case (see below How to brief notes)
Homework:
Index cards and Vocabulary Quiz 12/13 (A); 12/14 (B)
Case Brief due NEXT BLOCK for the Agresta case
The Parties and How to Keep Track of Them1
Students often have difficulty identifying parties involved in court cases. The following
definitions may help:
Plaintiffs sue defendants in civil suits in trial courts.
The government (state or federal) prosecutes defendants in criminal cases in trial
courts.
The losing party in a case may ask a higher (appellate) court to review the case on the ground
that the trial court judge made a mistake. If the law gives the loser the right to a higher court
review, the loser may appeal. If the loser does not have this right, the loser may ask the court for
a writ of certiorari. Under this procedure, the appellate court is asked to exercise its lawful
discretion in granting the cases a hearing for review.
1
The following article is adopted in part from How to Brief a Case, Lloyd Sealy Library, John Jay college of
Criminal Justice, rev. 1999, http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html. The article is modified to meet the
requirements of the Criminal Law and Procedure class at the Legal Studies Academy, FCHS.
For example, a defendant convicted in a federal district court has the right to appeal his case to
the Court of Appeals of his circuit and this court cannot refuse to hear it. If he then loses in this
court, he can request that the case be reviewed by the Supreme Court, but, for the most part, the
Supreme Court has no right to a hearing.
These two procedures, appeals and petitions for certiorari, are grouped together as “appeals.” A
person who seeks a writ of certiorari, that is, a ruling by a higher court that it hear the case, is
known as a petitioner. The person who must respond to the petition is called the respondent. A
person who files a formal appeal demanding appellate review as a matter of right is known as
the appellant. His or her opponent is the appellee.
The name of the party initiating the action in court always appears first in the legal papers. For
example, Arlo Tatum sued in Federal District Court trying to force Secretary of Defense Melvin
Laird from using the Army to spy on him. Tatum became the plaintiff and the case was then
known as Tatum v. Laird. Tatum lost in the District Court and appealed to the Court of Appeals,
where he was referred to as the appellant, and the defendant became the appellee. Thus the case
was still known at Tatum v. Laird.
When Tatum won in the Court of Appeals, Laird asked the Supreme Court to review the case. He
successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court directing the Court of
Appeals to send up the record of the case (trial court transcript, motion papers, and assorted legal
documents) to the Supreme Court.
At this point the name of the case changed to Laird v. Tatum: Laird was now the petitioner and
Tatum was the respondent. Several church groups and a group of former intelligence agents
obtained permission to file briefs (written arguments) on behalf of the respondents to help
persuade the Court to arrive at a decision favorable to them. Each of these groups was termed an
amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.”
In criminal cases, switches in the titles of cases are common, because most reach the appellate courts as
a result of an appeal by a convicted defendant. Thus, the case of Arizona v. Miranda later became
Miranda v. Arizona.
How to Brief a Case2
A student brief is a summary and analysis of a case. It is a set of notes, presented in a systematic
way, in order to sort out the parties, identify the issues, ascertain what was decided, and analyze
the reasoning behind decisions made by the courts. Student case briefs in this class must include
the following elements:
2
The following article is adopted in part from How to Brief a Case, Lloyd Sealy Library, John Jay college of
Criminal Justice, rev. 1999, http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html. The article is modified to meet the
requirements of the Criminal Law and Procedure class at the Legal Studies Academy, FCHS.





Title and Citation
Question of Law or Issue Addressed
The Facts of the Case
Judicial Decision and Rationale for the Decision, and
Analysis (explanation of the significance of the case to a class issue)
1. Title and Citation
The title of the case shows who is opposing whom. The name of the person who initiated legal
action in that particular court will appear first. For more information, see the handout “the parties
and how to keep track of them.” The second section of this guide shows you how to identify the
players. The citation tells how to locate the case in a reporter. If you know only the title of the
case, the citation to it can be found using the case digest covering that court, or one of the
computer-assisted legal research tools (Westlaw or LEXIS-NEXIS).
2. Issue Addressed
The issue addressed is often stated explicitly by the court. With rare exceptions, the outcome of
an appellate case will turn on the meaning of a provision of the Constitution, a law, or a judicial
doctrine. Capture that provision or debated point in your statement of the issue. When noting
issues, it may help to phrase them in terms of questions that can be answered with a precise
“yes” or “no.”
For example, Brown v. Board of Education involved how the 14th Amendment applied to a
school board’s practice of excluding black pupils from certain public schools solely due to their
race. The precise wording of the Amendment is “no state shall... deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The careful student would begin by identifying the
key phrases from this amendment and deciding which of them were really at issue in this case.
Assuming that there was no doubt that the school board was acting as the State, and that Miss
Brown was a “person within its jurisdiction,” then the key issue would be:
“Does the exclusion of students from a public school solely on the
basis of race amount to a denial of ‘equal protection of the laws’?”
NOTE: More students misread cases because they fail to see the issues in terms of the applicable
law or judicial doctrine than for any other reason. There is no substitute for taking the time to
carefully frame the question so that they incorporate the key provisions of the law in terms
capable of being given precise answers. Remember too, that the same case may be used by
instructors for different purposes, so part of the challenge of briefing is to identify those issues in
the case which are of central importance to the classroom topic.
3. Facts of the Case and procedural history
A good brief will include a brief summary of the pertinent facts and legal points raised in the
case. It will show the nature of the litigation, who sued whom, based on what occurrences, and
what happened in the lower courts. The facts are often conveniently summarized at the
beginning of the court’s published opinion. Sometimes, the best statement of the facts will be
found in a dissenting or concurring opinion.
The fact section of a good student brief will include the following elements:




A one-sentence description of the nature of the case, to serve as an introduction.
A statement of the relevant law, with quotation marks or underlining to draw
attention to the key words or phrases that are in dispute.
A summary of the complaint (civil) or the indictment (criminal) plus relevant evidence to
explain who did what to whom and why the case was thought to involve illegal conduct.
A summary of actions taken by the lower courts, for example: defendant convicted;
conviction upheld by appellate court; Supreme Court granted certiorari.
4. Judicial Decision and Reasoning
The decision, or holding, is the court’s answer to the issue in question. There are narrow
procedural holdings, for example, “case reversed and remanded,” broader substantive holdings
which deal with the interpretation of the Constitution, statutes, or judicial doctrines. If the issues
have been drawn precisely, the holdings can be stated in simple “yes” or “no” answers or in short
statements taken from the language used by the court.
The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the judges in either a majority or
a dissenting opinion to rule as they did. This should be outlined point by point and in an
organized fashion.
5. Analysis
Here the student should evaluate the significance of the case, its relationship to other cases, its
place in history, and what is shows about the Court, its members, its decision-making processes,
or the impact it has on litigants, government, or society. It is here that the implicit assumptions
and values of the Justices should be probed, the “rightness” of the decision debated, and the logic
of the reasoning considered.
A CAUTIONARY NOTE
Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you
have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the
decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or
distortions of precedent. Then ask, how does this case relate to other cases in the same general
area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense
of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?
See the next page for an example of a properly submitted case brief.
LEGAL STUDIES ACADEMY, FCHS
CASE BRIEF
To: Matthew Rossettini, Esq.
From: One of my talented and wonderful students
Date: September 1, 2011
Case: Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)
Issue
Can a political party keep a person from voting in a primary election based on that
person’s race?
Facts and procedural history
This case is about whether a political party violated the U.S. Constitution by
denying a person a right to vote in a primary election based on his race. The
relevant laws are the 14th, 15th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. The
petitioner tried to vote in the primary election of the Texas Democratic Party.
The Party refused to allow him to vote because he was black. The Party argued
that while the Constitution protected the right of people to vote in general
elections, the same was not true in primary elections because the party was a
private organization. Since the party was a private organization, it was not
required under the Constitution to allow all people to join the party or vote in a
primary.
Petitioner lost his initial case in District Court. The Court of Appeals upheld that
ruling based on prior case law. The Supreme Court granted petitioners writ of
certiorari.
Judicial Decision and Reasoning
In ruling for the petitioner, the Supreme Court overturned prior case law about the
right of people to vote in primary elections. The Court noted that the way in
which people are elected to office is determined by each state, not the federal
government. Because of this, the state of Texas could create its own rules about
voting for elected officials. But, the court also noted that the right of people to
organize into political parties, like the right to vote, is protected by the 14th, 15th
and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. Since people are allowed to create
political parties under the constitution, they must do this without violating the
rights of other people when it comes to voting. This does not change even if
political parties are private organizations.
Analysis
This case is important because it is one of many cases that were ruled on during
the civil rights movement. This case helped to establish that minorities could not
be denied the right to vote either in general elections or in state primaries.
Because of this, the right of minorities to vote in the United States was fully
recognized and upheld by the Supreme Court.
HOMEWORK: Complete a case brief using your
notes and the case below. (In case you lost it!)
Resorts Intern. Hotel, Inc. v. Agresta
569 F.Supp. 24
D.C.Va.,1983.
August 05, 1983 (Approx. 2 pages)
569 F.Supp. 24
United States District Court,
E.D. Virginia,
Richmond Division.
.
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC.
v.
Joseph J. AGRESTA.
Civ. A. No. 83–0215–R.
Aug. 5, 1983.
New Jersey gambling casino sued Virginia resident to recover on note given for gambling
losses. Casino moved to enter default. The District Court, Warriner, J., held that although
indebtedness may have been enforceable in New Jersey, enforcement would violate express
public policy and positive law of Virginia.
Complaint dismissed.
West Headnotes
General rule is that contracts and liabilities recognized as valid by laws of the state or country
where made or where established may be enforced in courts of another state or country where
the action is brought unless such contract or liability is contrary to morals, public policy or
positive law of the latter.
Although note given by Virginia resident to New Jersey gambling casino for gambling losses
may have been enforceable in New Jersey, it was not enforceable by Virginia federal district
court in diversity action as enforcement would be against express public policy and positive law
of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding makers failure to plead or otherwise defend. Va.Code
1950, § 11–14.
*24 Charles F. Witthoefft, Michael P. Falzone, Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen,
Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.
OPINION AND ORDER
WARRINER, District Judge.
Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed 30 June 1983, alleges that during May and June, 1982,
defendant came to plaintiff's place of business in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and engaged in and
lost a substantial sum of money in games of chance. To pay the loss defendant drew a series of
three drafts payable to plaintiff on the account of one Edward Hamway in a Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, bank. The drafts were dishonored by the bank and returned to the plaintiff.
Defendant thereupon executed a note in payment of the loss providing that defendant would pay
plaintiff the principal sum of $10,000 together with eight percent (8%) interest. The note
authorized defendant's attorney-in-fact, Benjamin B. Wooldridge,*25 to confess judgment
against defendant in the amount of $10,000 (face value of the note), plus interest, costs, and
collection charges. Plaintiffs allege that the note plus interest and collection charges is now due
and owing from defendant to plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that demand has been made upon
defendant to honor the obligation under the note, but that defendant has failed and refused to
pay plaintiff the sum due. Plaintiff has moved the Court to enter default under Rule 55(a),
Fed.R.Civ.P., against defendant for failure to plead or otherwise defend against the complaint.
For the reasons set forth herein the action will be dismissed.
Plaintiff, Resorts International Hotel, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff does not transact business in the Commonwealth
of Virginia and has no principal place of business here. Defendant is a citizen of the
Commonwealth. As the amount of the controversy exceeds $10,000, and the parties are diverse,
jurisdiction is proper. The Court looks to the substantive law of the Commonwealth of Virginia for
the basis of its decision.
[1]
[2]
The general rule is that contracts and liabilities recognized as valid by the laws
of the State or the country where made or established may be enforced in the courts of another
State or country where the action is brought unless such contract or liability is contrary to
morals, public policy, or the positive law of the latter. Parker v. Moore, 115 F. 799 (4th
Cir.1902). In New Jersey, gambling has been legalized and a contract such as that in the present
case would presumably be enforceable in its courts. Thus under ordinary principles of law the
debt would be enforceable in the courts of the Commonwealth. The fact that the debt is, in fact,
a gambling debt removes it from the ordinary and requires the Court to determine whether it is
collectible in this Court. The question is whether enforcing the debt would be contrary to the
morals, public policy, or the positive law of Virginia.
In Virginia any person who illegally gambles is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Va.Code §
18.2–326 (1982). Persons who operate an illegal gambling enterprise are guilty of a Class 6
felony. Va.Code § 18.2–328 (1982). Possession of a gambling device constitutes a Class 1
misdemeanor. Va.Code § 18.2–331 (1982). The public policy of the Commonwealth expressed
through statutory provisions has been since 1740 that all promises, agreements, mortgages, and
securities, and the like, where the consideration was based on wagers are void. See
Commonwealth v. Shelton, 49 Va. (8 Gratt.) 592 (1851). The applicable Virginia statute,
Va.Code § 11–14 (1982) provides that:
All wagers, conveyances, assurances, and all contracts and securities whereof the whole or any
part of the consideration be money or other valuable thing, won, laid, or bet, at any game, horse
race, sport or pastime, and all such contracts to repay any money knowingly lent at the time and
place of such game, race, sport, or pastime, to any person for the purpose of so gaming, betting,
or wagering, or to repay any money so lent to any person who shall, at such time and place, so
pay, bet, or wager, shall be utterly void.
Id.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has recently interpreted Va.Code § 11–14 (1982). In Kennedy
v. Annandale Boys Club, Inc., 221 Va. 504, 272 S.E.2d 38 (1980), plaintiff sought to recover a
judgment against defendant Boys Club for $6,000. She alleged that she won the money in a
bingo game conducted in Virginia at defendant club. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court
in sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's motion for judgment. The Court found that the
contract was not merely voidable but utterly void, and therefore, unenforceable. The Court
reasoned that even though the General Assembly had removed the “taint of illegality” from the
operation of bingo games in the Commonwealth, it had not repealed or amended Va.Code § 11–
14 (1982).
*26 The Virginia Supreme Court held that the plain and unambiguous language of the statute
should be construed strictly. The language makes plain that the General Assembly has not made
the State court system available to unpaid gambling winners. There can be no claim made on
any contract founded upon gaming. The Virginia Court concluded that the General Assembly's
failure to amend Va.Code § 11–14 (1982) could not be inadvertent in light of the change in law
to allow bingo in the Commonwealth. The Court also found that the legislature's refusal to permit
enforcement in its courts of a gambling contract presented no constitutional question, State or
federal. Id. 272 S.E.2d at 40.
In light of the General Assembly's express and unmistakable policy and the Virginia Supreme
Court's interpretation thereof in a case much more persuasive than this one, there can be no
other conclusion than that the enforcement of such a contract would be against the express
public policy and positive law of the Commonwealth.
This Court is mindful of a recent opinion by another judge of this Court directly on point
holding to the contrary. I am not aware of the authorities cited in that case and none are
specified in the bench opinion. But the controlling law in this diversity case is that of Virginia,
under the principles above mentioned, and I am not persuaded that I can ignore the plain
language of Virginia's statute and the equally plain language of its Supreme Court.
Accordingly, this Court cannot, despite defendant's failure to plead or otherwise defend this
case, contravene the positive law of the Commonwealth of Virginia in a diversity case and
enforce a contract that offends two centuries of State policy. See Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Morgan,
415 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.Ga.1976).
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the amended complaint shall be DISMISSED.
And it is so ORDERED.
D.C.Va.,1983.
Resorts Intern. Hotel, Inc. v. Agresta
569 F.Supp. 24
END OF DOCUMENT
Example from yesterday’s class typed by a student (grammar and punctuation were not checked)
Case Brief
To: Junior Associate or Senior Associate
From: YOUR Name
Date: December 1, 2011
Case: Town & Country Properties, INC. v. J. Riggins, 249 Va. 387 (1995)
Issue
Is the statute unconstitutional as applied under the facts of this case to a corporation engaged in
the sale of residential real estate?
Facts and procedural history
The plaintiff-appellee, John Riggins, is a former football player who makes his salary on
personal appearances and working on his talk show radio host in D.C. He divorced his wife in
1991. Mrs. Riggins received a real-estate license from Town & Country properties INC., and
used her husbands name to advertise the house, which was later sold for $745,000.00. Mr.
Riggins was not informed of this and did not give Town & Country properties INC. consent to
use his name for advertising purposes. Under code 8.01-40(A), it is illegal to use some ones
name without consent for use of advertising. This was determined and affirmed in court. Town &
Country properties INC. filed for an appeal to the decision and questions if the code is
unconstitutional given the facts of the case.
Example from today’s class typed by a student (grammar and punctuation were not checked)
Case Brief
To: Junior Associate or Mrs. Weigl
From: YOUR name
Date: December 2, 2011
Case: Town & Country Properties, INC v. J. Riggins, 249 Va. 387 (1995)
Issue
Is the statute unconstitutional as applied under the facts of this case to a corporation engaged in
the sale of residential real estate?
Facts and Procedural History
This case is about whether Town & Country Properties, INC can be charged for using John
Riggins’ name illegally. The relevant law is code 8.01-40(A). Mary Lou used John’s name
without his consent as a false pretense to draw them to the brokers’ open of his previously owned
home. The VA code states that “without first obtaining the individual’s written consent, such
person may sue and recover damages from the person, firm, or corporation so using the name”.
John’s name was his livelihood.
Riggins won his initial case in District Court. Town & Country Properties, INC filed for an
appeal.