FOR THE ESSAY QUESTION 1\ Example for case briefing Please read and brief the following cases: 
 New York Times v. Sullivan https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254 New York Times v. US 
 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Facts of the case: A government elected official brought suit in Alabama State Court, Montgomery against the New York Times newspaper. The allegation was that a paid advertisement appeared in the paper, that was presumed to be libelous to the elected official. Libel, if intended with malicious purposes, could be used as a reason to sue in Alabama. The government official won the case but could not claim damages due to a lack of evidence showing malicious intent. Issues: The issue being disputed concerned if New York Times had intended malice in its printing of the paid advertisement or if it had intentionally ignored facts in an effort to harm. If this was the case, evidence existed against New York Times. Decision: The Supreme Court, to which the New York Times appealed after initial judgment in favor of the official, ruled 9 to 0 in favor of the New York Times. Proof could not be established showing malicious intent on the part of the New York Times. Reasoning: The First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard free speech and damages cannot be awarded to an official by the State if the individual is unable to prove a libelous statement has been made with malicious intent. Conclusion: The case was a victory for the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment that guaranteed that freedom of speech and press is afforded to the citizens of the United States. CASE BRIEFS 2 Title: New York Times Co. v. United States Facts of the case: Richard Nixon acting under the US Govt. brought suit against the New York Times attempting to prevent them from publishing classified articles. Issues: The issue in question was if the New York Times was acting within its constitutional right to publish freely (as a member of the press) Decision: The Court ruling was in favor of the New York Times Reasoning: It is unconstitutional to hinder free speech, as granted by the first amendment, and if the New York Times was stopped from publication, then it would be a direct attack against the rights of the people. Conclusion: The final ruling secured the freedom of press and its ability to serve the people without pressure from even the government. 2\ Example for case briefing PLEASE READ AND BRIEF THE FOLLOWING CASES BRANDENBURG V. OHIO https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 SCHENCK V. US https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 Title: Brandenburg v. Ohio Facts of the case: A KKK leader was convicted under an Ohio law that allowed conviction for promoting terroris ...

1. FOR THE ESSAY QUESTION
1 Example for case briefing
Please read and brief the following cases:
New York Times v. Sullivan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254
New York Times v. US
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Facts of the case:
A government elected official brought suit in Alabama State
Court, Montgomery
against the New York Times newspaper. The allegation was that
a paid
advertisement appeared in the paper, that was presumed to be
libelous to the
elected official. Libel, if intended with malicious purposes,
could be used as a
reason to sue in Alabama.
The government official won the case but could not claim
damages due to a lack of
evidence showing malicious intent.

2. Issues: The issue being disputed concerned if New York Times
had intended malice
in its printing of the paid advertisement or if it had intentionally
ignored facts in an
effort to harm. If this was the case, evidence existed against
New York Times.
Decision: The Supreme Court, to which the New York Times
appealed after initial
judgment in favor of the official, ruled 9 to 0 in favor of the
New York Times.
Proof could not be established showing malicious intent on the
part of the New
York Times.
Reasoning: The First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard
free speech and
damages cannot be awarded to an official by the State if the
individual is unable to
prove a libelous statement has been made with malicious intent.
Conclusion: The case was a victory for the First Amendment
and Fourteenth
Amendment that guaranteed that freedom of speech and press is
afforded to the
citizens of the United States.
CASE BRIEFS
2
Title: New York Times Co. v. United States
Facts of the case: Richard Nixon acting under the US Govt.
brought suit against the

3. New York Times attempting to prevent them from publishing
classified articles.
Issues: The issue in question was if the New York Times was
acting within its
constitutional right to publish freely (as a member of the press)
Decision: The Court ruling was in favor of the New York Times
Reasoning: It is unconstitutional to hinder free speech, as
granted by the first
amendment, and if the New York Times was stopped from
publication, then it
would be a direct attack against the rights of the people.
Conclusion: The final ruling secured the freedom of press and
its ability to serve
the people without pressure from even the government.
2 Example for case briefing
PLEASE READ AND BRIEF THE FOLLOWING CASES
BRANDENBURG V. OHIO
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
SCHENCK V. US
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47
Title: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Facts of the case: A KKK leader was convicted under an Ohio
law that allowed conviction for
promoting terrorism or violence as a way to achieve political or
industrial changes. This law,

4. known as the Ohio Criminal Sydicalism statute outlawed
advocacy of earlier mentioned criminal
activities to achieve political reform. The KKK leader made a
speech promoting revenge against
CASE BRIEFS
3
the government if it did not stop suppressing ‘whites’, and was
therefore convicted. Defendant
appealed the decision.
Issues: The issue at hand was whether the Ohio Statute violated
the First Amendment and
Fourteenth amendment rights to freedom of speech under the
United States Constitution.
Decision: Reversed. The Justices argued in favor of the
Appellant and reversed his conviction.
Reasoning: The Ohio Statute overstepped on the First and
Fourteenth Amendments
constitutionally allowing freedom of speech and press. It
prohibited mere advocacy of violent
action or assembling with people advocating such actions.
However, under free speech, a citizen
is allowed to advocate the use of force – as long as the
advocacy does not directly incite or

5. promote certain lawless action. Therefore, the appellant was
allowed to make hateful and violent
remarks so long as his speech had no danger of actually inciting
violent actions. According to the
opinion of the Justices, “the mere abstract teaching . . . of the
moral propriety or even moral
necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as
preparing a group for violent action
and steeling it to such action.”
Conclusion: This landmark case overruled an earlier case
‘Whitney v. California’ and guaranteed
the primacy of the First Amendment allowing free speech.
Citizens of US are allowed to make
comments – no matter how hateful or violent – as long as they
do not actually cause a group to
organize and carry out violent or illegal conduct.
CASE BRIEFS
4
Title: Schenck v. United States
Facts of the case: Defendants were convicted for a conspiracy to
promote materials that

6. influenced people to avoid the military draft which is a rule of
US law. This promotion of
materials was a conspiracy to violate Espionage Act, and a
conspiracy to ‘commit an offence
agsint the United States’. In addition, the defendants violated
the principles of mailing
documents that were deemed ‘nonmailable’.
Issue: Whether the leaflets (material) distributed was within the
right of freedom to speech, or if
they used language that presented a clear danger of individuals
committing acts regarded as
illegal by the United States.
Decision: Affirmed. The Court held that the material circulated
was not within the boundaries of
freedom of speech.
Reasoning: The Court argued that since the United States was at
war, the language used in the
materials circulated presented a clear and present danger to the
United States, by preventing
people from being sent to war and defend the United States. The
Government has a right to
prevent actions that are illegal, and in this circumstance, the
leaflets imminently promoted

7. actions that were seen as evil and illegal in the eyes of the
Government.
CASE BRIEFS
5
Conclusion: The decision of this case gave rise to a new
standard that determined the validity of
freedom of speech. It added boundaries to freedom of speech by
disallowing speech (or
circulation of materials) that could lead to a ‘clear and present
danger’ to the principles of the
United States.
2# SAMPLE ESSAY QUESTION
On a sunny, breezy, Sunday afternoon in late October 2016,
Regina George was
holding a town hall style campaign meeting in hopes of securing
her bid for the
United States Senate.
Being back in her hometown was exciting for Regina given the
travel associated
with her busy campaign schedule. As such, Regina opted to
leave straight from the
campaign event and meet up with some friends at a restaurant in
downtown.
While pulling into a parking space at “The,” the hip new spot in
the Arts District,

8. Regina was suddenly rear ended by a 2004 Honda Civic. The
person who hit
Regina got out of her car, yelled “You’re a terrible person
Regina,” and then took
off running.
The next day a newspaper published a report by Cady Heron.
The article by Heron
claimed that Regina, in a drunken stupor, backed into Cady’s
car causing severe
injuries.
Needless to say, Regina is furious. Not only is Regina in pain
following the car
accident, but the story from Cady is hurting the campaign.
Regina has come to you to sue Cady and make things right.
Regina wants you to
sue Cady for all claims on which you think we could be
successful. Please draft a
memorandum describing the claims Regina George can file
against Cady Heron.
CASE BRIEFS
6
3#SAMPLE LAW ESSAY ANSWER
Essay Question
Claims Regina George can file against Cady Heron: George has
the civil right to either file or not
file against Heron. George will be utilizing torts and suing

9. Heron for a variety of claims.
Defamation
Regina George can file for defamation against Cady Heron.
Being that Regina George is
a present public official, who is relying on her reputation to
secure her bid in the US Senate, the
false claims spoken by Ms. Heron are damaging. However, since
George is in a public official
position she must show that Heron acted with actual malice.
Heron acted maliciously because
she hit George’s car and additionally ran way after the accident.
Heron was in George’s
hometown, so there is reasonable expectation that Heron knew
George and spoke against her
maliciously. Additionally there are two types of defamation that
George can file.
Libel
Libel is written form of defamation. The next day Heron
published a report on the
incident with George in a newspaper. This is written defamation
because it caused a negative
affect on George’s reputation and career. The article written by
Heron claims that Regina was in

10. a “drunken stupor”. To sue Heron, George will have to prove
that Heron acted with actual
malice. George can prove that she was not drunk at the event,
additionally Heron had no
interaction with George to factually show that George was
drunk. This is a false claim that Heron
did not attempt to clear with facts. In the report Heron also said
that George backed into Heron’s
car. Again, Heron acted with actual malice because facts show
that it was Heron who rear-ended
George. Heron failed to find truth and disclose all the facts of
the incident. In the report Heron
CASE BRIEFS
7
also says that George caused “severe injuries”. Again Heron
fails to attempt to find actual facts,
she does not speak to George about and injuries, again she acted
with actual malice while writing
damaging statements on George. George is a public figure and
is severely hurt by the accident
caused by Heron, both professionally in her campaign, and
physically in the pain she felt after
the accident caused by Heron. George can successfully sue

11. against Heron for libel.
Slander
Slander is the spoken form of defamation. George can sue
Heron for slander because of
the statements Heron made immediately after the accident.
Heron yelled “you’re a terrible person
Regina”. George has to prove that Heron acted with actual
malice because she is still a public
figure, in or out of her hometown. Heron did not speak to
George, or even stick around after the
accident to gather facts. Heron spoke out and ran away
immediately after the accident. Since
George is a public figure whose career relies on her reputation,
she is a politician so damaging
comments on her personality and her as a person are very
serious. Heron is expected to know
who George is because she is on campaign and in her
hometown, so she acted to cause damages
on her. This claim would be successful against Heron.
Battery
Battery is the unlawful and offensive attack on a person. Heron
physically hurt George’s
car. She unlawfully rear-ended the vehicle, which caused

12. George to have physical pain. Heron’s
car is her property and therefore she caused a physical attack on
George. George experienced
physical pain as a result from the accident. George could
rightfully sue Heron for battery.
Assault
CASE BRIEFS
8
Assault is the immediate threat or apprehension of threat by
force or fear. George can sue
Heron for assault by saying that Heron caused immediate fear in
her when she hit her car. This
caused immediate threat to George because she was in an
accident and then got yelled at by
Heron. Heron caused serious fear in George in the accident.
George could successfully sue
Heron for assault.
Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Similarly Heron hurt George with her property, her car.
Heron’s car is a deadly weapon
because of the damage it can cause a person. Heron hit Regina’s
property, her car, and caused

13. physical pain on George. George can sue Heron for assaulting
her with a deadly weapon and she
could be successful.
Homicide
Homicide is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
Heron hit George’s car, which
could serve as her intention and method to kill George. Since,
George did not die from the
accident, so this would not succeed.
Robbery
Robbery is the unlawful taking of an item from another by
force or fear. George could sue
Heron for robbery. George could argue that Heron used force
from her car to provoke fear in her.
Heron could have been planning to take items from George
because she knows she is a well-off
politician. Since Heron did not take any items from Heron, this
claim would not be successful.
Felony Murder Rule
CASE BRIEFS
9

14. Felony murder rule states that while in commission of a felony
and a homicide results,
by common law rule you are on the hook for first degree
murder. Heron was not acting in a
felony, and a homicide did not result. George would be
unsuccessful with this claim.
To conclude George has a great chance of successfully filing a
variety of torts against Heron.
4# SAMPLE TEST
John Doe had recently separated from his longtime partner and
experienced great difficult with
the break-up. In addition to struggling with his new life, he has
also started drinking excessively
every day. Just a week ago Doe lost his job as an accountant at
a major law firm because of his
alcoholism.
Broke and heartbroken Doe spent most days in his apartment
drinking the cheapest alcohol he
could buy. One week ago, Doe found his way to the liquor store
he frequents more and more
often. Showing up clearly intoxicated, the shop owner refused
to sell alcohol to Doe. Doe
became infuriated, threw his bottle of liquor on the floor,
grabbed a case of beer next to the
counter and walked out of the store.
Doe was arrested just outside liquor store, surrounded by three
cans of beer, slumped over and
unconscious.

15. You are a deputy district attorney and you must determine what
charges, if any, to charge John
Doe with. Please describe the reasoning you used to arrive at
your decision.
SINCERELY,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SMITH
CASE BRIEFS
10