1. BY PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ
BRIEFING CASES BY
PROF. PAVEL WONSOWICZ

2. 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

3. HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO DO THIS?
IT’S AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
IT WILL GET EASIER
THEY WILL GET SHORTER

4. WHAT DO THEY ENCOMPASS? THE SALAD BAR APPROACH IDENTIFICATION FACTS
PROCEDURE
ISSUE
HOLDING (very important)
RATIONALE
EVALUATION

5. IDENTIFICATION
NAME
CITATION
YEAR
COURT
JUDGE
PAGE/SECTION OF BOOK

6. 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.)

7. 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

8. 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

9. ISSUE (Continued) UNDER/DOES/WHEN FORMAT UNDER [the law]
DOES [the legal question]
WHEN [important facts exist]

10. 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

11. 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

12. EVALUATION IS IT CONVINCING? WHY OR WHY NOT? WHAT ARE THE COSTS?
WERE THE INTERPRETATIONS FAIR? FAULTY?

13. D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo
Citation:
393 F.3d 692 (6th Cir.) 2005.

14. 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.

15. 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?

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.