100% (1)
Pages:
3 pages/≈825 words
Sources:
1
Style:
APA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 12.96
Topic:

Aguas v. New Jersey, 220 N.J. 494 (2015)

Essay Instructions:

https://caselaw(dot)findlaw(dot)com/nj-supreme-court/1692580.html

Student brief Structure

These can be extensive or short, depending on the depth of analysis required and the demands of the instructor. A comprehensive brief includes the following elements:

1. Title and Citation

Make sure you write the full citation as set forth in the case. For example the U.S. Supreme Court is usually cited as follows (example), "Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)"; The NJ Supreme Court, likewise is cited usually, as follows (example), "Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (2004)." The title of the case shows who is opposing whom. The name of the person who initiated legal action in that particular court will always appear first. Since the losers often appeal to a higher court, this can get confusing. The first section of this guide shows you how to identify the players without a scorecard.

The citation tells how to locate the reporter of the case in the appropriate case reporter. If in the future, you do not know how to cite a certain court, google it - there are plenty of online sources.

2. Facts of the Case

A good student brief will include a summary of the pertinent facts and legal points raised in the case. It will show the nature of the litigation, who sued whom, based on what occurrences, and what happened in the lower court/s.

The facts are often conveniently summarized at the beginning of the court’s published opinion. Sometimes, the best statement of the facts will be found in a dissenting or concurring opinion. WARNING! Judges are not above being selective about the facts they emphasize. This can become of crucial importance when you try to reconcile apparently inconsistent cases, because the way a judge chooses to characterize and “edit” the facts often determines which way he or she will vote and, as a result, which rule of law will be applied.

The fact section of a good student brief will include the following elements:

A one or two-sentence description of the nature of the case, to serve as an introduction.

A statement of the relevant law, which allows us to draw attention to the key issue/s that are in dispute. This may take you a couple of sentences

A summary of the relevant facts to explain who did what to whom. Be precise as to what was alleged by one arty against another.

A summary of actions taken by the lower courts, for example: "Plaintiff's case dismissed; Plaintiff appealed; The trial court's decision was affirmed by appellate court; Supreme Court granted certiorari; Supreme Court reversed appellate court's decision and remanded for a new trial."

3. Issues

The issues or questions of law raised by the facts peculiar to the case are often stated explicitly by the court.



..



With rare exceptions, the outcome of an appellate case will turn on the meaning of a provision of the Constitution, a law, or a judicial doctrine/theory. Capture that provision or debated point in your restatement of the issue.







When noting issues, it may help to phrase them in terms of questions that can be answered with a precise “yes” or “no.” An acceptable means of framing issues would be as follows: "The NJ Supreme Court in John Doe v. Saul Goodman, decided the issue of: "Are all employees in NJ that merely sign applications and begin work without contracts or union protections at will-employees?" The NJ Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, stating that employees that have received no written, oral, or implied representations of just-case employment are at-will employees.



..



NOTE: Many students misread cases because they fail to see the issues in terms of the applicable law or judicial doctrine than for any other reason. There is no substitute for taking the time to frame carefully the questions, so that they actually incorporate the key provisions of the law in terms capable of being given precise answers. When reading, it may also help to label the issues if there are more than one.







4. Decisions

The decision, or holding, is the court’s answer to a question presented to it for answer by the parties involved or raised by the court itself in its own reading of the case. There are narrow procedural holdings, for example, “case reversed and remanded,” broader substantive holdings which deal with the interpretation of the Constitution, statutes, or judicial doctrines. If the issues have been drawn precisely, the holdings can be stated in simple “yes” or “no” answers or in short statements taken from the language used by the court.



5. Reasoning

The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the judges in either a majority or a dissenting opinion to rule as they did. This should be outlined in a paragraph



6. Separate Opinions

Four our purposes, the focus should be on the majority opinion. This does not mean that you will not be responsible for understanding the dissenting or concurring opinions. For those dissenting/concurring opinions, a few sentences stating why the dissenting/concurring judges disagreed (dissent) or concurred (agreed with the outcome but not for the same reasons set forth by the majority).



7. Analysis

Here the student should evaluate the significance of the case and its impact on future litigants, government, or society.



A cautionary note

Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or distortions of precedent. Then ask, How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?

Essay Sample Content Preview:

Aguas v. New Jersey, 220 N.J. 494 (2015)
Student’s Name
Institution
Lecturer’s Name
Course Name and Number
Due Date
Aguas v. New Jersey, 220 N.J. 494 (2015)
Facts of the Case
Aguas v. New Jersey, 220 N.J. 494 (2015) is a sexual harassment case where the plaintiff, Ilda Agua, a corrections officer in the New Jersey (N.J.) Department of Corrections (DOC), alleged that her supervisors repeatedly harassed her sexually in her workplace through sexual gestures, proposals, and innuendos as well as suggestive bodily contact. According to the plaintiff, one of the highest-ranking supervisors, Lieutenant Darry McClish, physically and verbally harassed her by massaging her shoulders and forcing a lap dance (Aguas v. New Jersey, 2015). Ms. Aguas also claimed that the defendant approached her from behind, held her while grinding his genitals into her buttocks, and asked, ''What are you going to do?’’ The plaintiff vainly opposed these sexually harassing behaviors.
These conducts subjected Ms. Aguas to severe distress, prompting her to report the matter to her Captain and acting Chief. The captain encouraged her to submit a formal sexual harassment report, but she declined, fearing retaliation. A coworker later warned her against filing the claim. Despite the absence of an official statement, the DOC began to investigate the allegations, which it ultimately found unsubstantiated (Aguas v. New Jersey, 2015). The lack of seriousness of the DOC in addressing the matter prompted Aguas to file a lawsuit against the state. In her case, she asserted negligence and vicarious liability on N.J. Law Against Discrimination (LAD). A trial court issued a summary judgment dismissing the case. The court argued that since the DOC observed ant-harassment policies, it was not liable for the harassment behaviors of the accused (Aguas v. New Jersey, 2015).
Aguas appealed the trial court’s decision. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment. Certiorari was granted, and the landmark decision in the case was penned (Aguas v. New Jersey, 2015). The N.J. Supreme Court reviewed the state's history of sexual harassment law, including the court's decision on Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993). The Supreme Court used this case to assess whether the employer is vicariously liable and negligent for workplace sexual harassment (Aguas v. New Jersey, 2015). The court also reviewed and adopted federal cases regarding employer defenses to sexual harassment claims, including Burlington Industries v. El...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
Sign In
Not register? Register Now!