BRIEFING A CASE

do about Swalberg v. Hannegan

Each student is to brief three cases.  The professor will select a practice brief for the student.  The brief will be due June 24, 2014.  The professor will choose one case from the text.  The students are to brief the case and turn the case in on June 26, 2014.  The student must be prepared to brief the case orally in class when called upon.  Be advised that if the student is absent when called upon, the student will receive an “F” for participation.  The final brief is to be chosen by the student from lexis nexis or some other computerized database.  The final brief is due on July 3, 2014.
In each instance make sure to properly cite the cases.  A proper citation should read “Windows, Inc. v. Jordan Panel Systems Corp.  177 F. 3d  114.  Where the first name is the plaintiff and second name is the defendant.  The first number is the volume in the California Reporter third series page 114.  This citation follows suit at both the federal and state level.
To brief the cases properly, the student must use FILAC.  Each assignment must be turned in on time.

FILAC      FACTS, ISSUE, LAW, ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

FACTS:
The facts describe the events that led to the controversy in question.  All that is required is a brief statement of the acts, physical events, and other matters that caused the parties to seek relief from the judicial systems.  Should be no more that six sentences..

ISSUE:
This issue is the reason why the parties are in court.  It is a one sentence statement followed by a question mark.  The issue is what the court must answer in granting or denying relief.

LAW:
In reaching a decision, the court must apply the law.  In each case, the student must find the applicable law.  In a full text case, the law will be explicitly stated.  However, in the text, these are partially briefed cases and sometimes the authors omit the law.  In this instance,  please refer to the preceding section to find the law.  Remember, when reading a case there will be references to other cases, principles.  However, the cases and other references in the case assist the court in applying the law.  Remember, write the applicable law (code, constitutional provision, treaty etc).

ANALYSIS:

The analysis is the application of the facts to the law in deciding the case.  The analysis will include the court’s rationale in deciding the case.  The analysis will include a review of cases, distinguishing past cases from the current case, acknowledgement that a certain case is applicable and is the governing principle in applying the law.  Think of an analysis as where the court combines the facts to the law to reach a conclusion.  This section should be no more than five or six sentences.

CONCLUSION:

The conclusion is only who won the case.  In many instances the case has been appealed and the original plaintiff is now the defendant and the original defendant is the plaintiff.  Remember, determine which court you are in (superior, appellate, supreme) and if it is the appellate court, determine who the original plaintiff was and whether the case has been appealed.

Capital Currency Exchange v. National Westminster Bank and Barclays Bank
155 F.3d 603

FACTS: Capital Currency Exchange (CCE) is a financial organization that engaged in retail currency exchange and transferring money between the United States and England. CCE and its affiliates maintained a banking relationship with Barclays UK. In 1992 Worldcash wanted to acquire a New York State money transmission license. A $500,000 needed to be posted for the New York State banking authorities. On behalf of Worldcash, CCE prepared a line of credit as security for the bond with Barclays UK in 1991. Barclays UK and CCE severed ties in May of 1995 after Barclays UK informed CCE it needed to use another banker for future business. The facts of the split are disputed by both parties.  National Westminster Bank also denied services to CCE which led CCE to believe that Barclays UK was conspiring against them.  CCE brought suit and claims the conspiracy violates antitrust laws under the Sherman Act.
Barclays UK and National Westminster argued that the case should be dismissed under the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine.

ISSUE: Is the another adequate forum to resolve the dispute under the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine

LAW: The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine states that an alternative forum is adequate if: (1) the defendants are subject to the service of process there; and (2) the forum permits litigation of the subject matter of the dispute.

ANALYSIS: The District Court found that the English courts are an adequate alternative forum to solve the dispute between all parties involved. The English courts have the power to award damages based on violations of antitrust law. The court made it clear that although treble damages are unavailable, it does not render a forum inadequate.

CONCUSION: Affirmed in favor of Barclays UK and National Westminster Bank

TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW