BY PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ 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.