MG260 Unit 5 Park University Law Case Study

Choose your assignment:
Option #1: Brief Walters v. YMCA on p. 468-470.
Option #2: Brief Browning v. Poirier on p. 489-491.
For both options, use pages 29-30 for reference. Your brief should be 1 to 2 pages in Times New Roman font, 12 point. In your brief, you should include the following information:
Identify the parties.
Possible questions to answer would be: Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?
What is the history of the case?
Possible questions to answer would be: Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision? Please note that this is the history of the case in court–not the facts of the case.
What are the facts?
Possible questions to answer would be: What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue? What facts did the Court find relevant in its decision?
What is the plaintiff’s theory?
Possible questions to answer would be: Why he thinks he should win? What facts does the plaintiff think are important?
What is the defendant’s theory?
Possible questions to answer would be: Why she thinks she should win? What facts does the defendant think are important?
What is the legal issue?
Tip: this will be a question that can be answered with yes or no and should end with a question mark.
What is the holding of the Court?
Tip: this will be either yes or no and will answer the legal issue.
What is the reasoning of the Court?
Possible questions to answer would be: what facts and laws did the Court rely on to decide the case?; why was the case decided in the winner’s favor?; why did the other side lose?
Evaluative Question for Reflection: What do you think about this case? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?
Rubric
MG260 Case Study (3)
MG260 Case Study (3)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent
25.0 to >23.0 pts
Content is focused and specific; correctly identifies all the brief elements–parties, history, etc. Legal issue is clearly identified.
23.0 to >19.9 pts
Content is clear but in limited places has a shifting focus or lacks specificity; correctly identifies the legal issue; most of the remaining brief elements are correct
19.9 to >17.4 pts
Content is clear, but in multiple places has shifting focus and lacks specificity. Legal issues are identified but not in clear or specific in detail; the remaining brief elements are correct with some mistakes
17.4 to >14.0 pts
Content is unclear, inconsistent, or incomplete; legal issue is not correctly identified; few of remaining brief elements are correct
14.0 to >0 pts
Content is unclear and limited; legal issue is not correctly identified or is missing; most remaining brief elements are incorrect
25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
15.0 to >13.4 pts
Presents an exemplary and thorough analysis; answers questions with logical, concise, and clear reasoning
13.4 to >11.9 pts
Presents an insightful and thorough analysis; answers questions with logical reasoning
11.9 to >10.4 pts
Presents a thorough analysis; understandable answers to questions
10.4 to >5.9 pts
Makes at effort at analysis, but reasoning is unclear or inconsistent; answers to questions are not thorough or consistent
5.9 to >0 pts
Superficial or incomplete analysis or makes no effort at analysis; answers to questions are irrelevant or incomprehensible
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppearance (Grammar/Readability)
10.0 to >8.9 pts
No more than 1 grammar error; effective word choice and sentence variety; superior facility with the conventions of standard written English; ideas are developed logically with flow between sentences and paragraphs
8.9 to >7.9 pts
Few grammar errors (< 3); competent word choice and sentence variety; competence with the conventions of standard written English; ideas expressed with clear overall organization 7.9 to >6.9 pts
Some grammar errors (4-7); word choice and sentence structure are unvaried; average familiarity with standard written English; ideas loosely organized with inadequate transitions; some ideas are illogical or unrelated
6.9 to >3.9 pts
Grammar needs work (8-10 errors); poor word choice and sentence structure; below average familiarity with standard written English; ideas are not coherently expressed; overall organization is lacking
3.9 to >0 pts
Frequent grammar errors (>10); significant problems in word choice or sentence structure; ideas not developed or organized; uneven or ineffective overall organization
10.0 pts
Total Points: 50.0

“Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results.”