Legal brief

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Research the full cases and complete a full case brief.

You should complete four (4) cases all together.

Also attached is an example of how the legal brief are suppose to be.

o Lee v. Weisman

o Engal v. Vitale  

o Lemon v. Kurtzman

o Browne v. Stone


EDL 5700 – Ethics and School Law for School Administrators

Focus: LEGAL

Assignment: Legal Brief #2




CASES:




Textbook #1:

McCarthy, M., Eckes, E., & Decker, J. (2018). Legal Rights of School Leaders, Teachers, and Students (8th ed.). Loyola Marymount: Pearson. ISBN: 978-0134997537

·
Lee v. Weisman

·
Engal v. Vitale

·
Bd. of Educ. v. Pico

·
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster


Textbook #2:

Nathan L. (2016). School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders (6th ed.). University of Memphis: Pearson. ISBN: 978-0133984415

·
Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District

·
Lemon v. Kurtzman

·
Browne v. Stone

·
Byrd v. Livingston Independent School District

INSTRUCTIONS:

· Choose two (2) cases from each textbook above

· Research the full cases and complete a full case brief

· You should complete four (4) cases all together.

Sample Legal Brief – EDL 5700

David C. Fuller

EDL 5700 – Ethics and School Law

Legal Brief #1


Citation: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Topic: Powers of a current president to withhold promised commissioned seats under a previous president. The legal limitations of the Supreme Court.

Issues: (1) Does Marbury have a right to the commission? (2) Does the law grant Marbury a remedy? (3) Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void? (4) Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution? (5) Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Facts: President John Adams commissioned forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit court justices for the District of Columbia before the end of his term. He signed the documents, they were sealed by the secretary of state, but they were not delivered before his term expired. When Thomas Jefferson took office he refused to honor these commissions. William Madison was to be one of those justices of the peace and was not given his position.

Finding of the Trial Court: The case was brought straight to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Appellate Court: The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Madison, and he was owed remedy. They also found it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus.


Reasoning: 1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. They found that when the President signed the correct forms during his term, the commissions were legal and effective. 2. Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy. Civil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. A duty of the government is to afford that protection. The seal verified the validity of the signature. The failure to deliver this paper was a violation to his constitutional rights, and he has the right to remedy. 3. Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void. 4. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in
Article III of the Constitution. 5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. This was a matter in its original jurisdiction.

S

ample Legal Brief

EDL 5700

David C. Fuller

E

DL 5700

E

thics

and School L

aw

Legal Brief

#1

Citation:

Marbury v. Madison

, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Topic:

Powers of a current president to withhold promised commissioned seats

under a previous

president.

The legal limitations of the Supreme Court.

Issues

:

(1)

Does Marbury have a right to the commission?

(2)

Does the law grant Marbury a

remedy?

(3)

Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and

determine whether they are unconst

itutional and therefore void?

(4)

Can Congress expand the

scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the

Constitution?

(5)

Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Fact

s:

President John Adams commissioned forty

two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit

court justices for the District of Columbia before the end of his term. He signed the documents,

they were sealed by the secretary of state,

but they were not delivered before his term expired.

When Thomas Jefferson took office he refused to honor these commissions. William Madison

was to be one of those justices of the peace and was not given his position.

Finding of the Trial Court:

The cas

e was brought straight to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Appellate Court:

The court

found in favor of the plaintiff, Madison, and he was

owed remedy. They also found it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to

issue writs of

mandamus.

Reasoning:

1.

Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. They f

ound that when the President

signed the correct forms during his term, the commissions were legal and effective. 2.

Yes. The

law grants Marbury a remedy.

C

ivil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the

protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury.

A duty of the

government is to afford that

protection.

The seal verified the validity of the signature. The failure to deliver

this

paper

was a

violation to his constitutional rights, and he has the right to remedy. 3.

Yes. The Supreme Court

has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and

therefore void.

4.

No. Congress cannot expan

d the scope of the Supreme Court’s original

jurisdiction beyond what is specified

in

Article III of the Constitution

.

5.

No. The Supr

eme

Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

This was a matter in its

original jurisdiction.

Sample Legal Brief – EDL 5700

David C. Fuller

EDL 5700 – Ethics and School Law

Legal Brief #1

Citation: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

Topic: Powers of a current president to withhold promised commissioned seats under a previous

president. The legal limitations of the Supreme Court.

Issues: (1) Does Marbury have a right to the commission? (2) Does the law grant Marbury a

remedy? (3) Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and

determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void? (4) Can Congress expand the

scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the

Constitution? (5) Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Facts: President John Adams commissioned forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit

court justices for the District of Columbia before the end of his term. He signed the documents,

they were sealed by the secretary of state, but they were not delivered before his term expired.

When Thomas Jefferson took office he refused to honor these commissions. William Madison

was to be one of those justices of the peace and was not given his position.

Finding of the Trial Court: The case was brought straight to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Appellate Court: The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Madison, and he was

owed remedy. They also found it unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to issue writs of

mandamus.

Reasoning: 1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission. They found that when the President

signed the correct forms during his term, the commissions were legal and effective. 2. Yes. The

law grants Marbury a remedy. Civil liberty consists in the right of every individual to claim the

protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. A duty of the government is to afford that

protection. The seal verified the validity of the signature. The failure to deliver this paper was a

violation to his constitutional rights, and he has the right to remedy. 3. Yes. The Supreme Court

has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and

therefore void. 4. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original

jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution. 5. No. The Supreme

Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. This was a matter in its

original jurisdiction.

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net