Case Briefing Assignment:
Introduction:
"Case law" is a term describing the published decisions of courts of appeal (e.g. the Oregon Court of Appeals, which is the court that reviews appeals of cases in Oregon county Circuit Courts-see https://courts.oregon.gov/COA/). These published decisions set important case precedent, meaning that other courts usually must use these decisions as a template for how to rule on a controversy involving similar facts and circumstances. Typically, the higher the court, the more important the precedent (e.g., the decisions of Oregon's case, the Oregon Supreme
Court supersede decisions of the Oregon Court of Appeals involving the same facts and circumstances).
Case law is important for many reasons. For instance, case law interprets statutes, ordinances, and other law made by Congress, state legislators, city councils, and other lawmakers. Case law also interprets the U.S. Constitution, and the constitutions of the various states. As such, case-law decisions effectively modify the applicable law.
Case law is also important for businesses. This is because case law provides important information regarding how a business should operate under certain facts and circumstances, and how businesses should interpret the law adopted by lawmakers. For instance, in the case of Berry v.
Richfiled Oil Corp., 189 Or 568, 587-588 (1950), the Oregon Supreme Court held that a person who has not bothered to read or seek clarification of his or her contract cannot later prevail in court on the basis that the contract has been misrepresented. In the case of Lukas v.
J.C. Penney Co., 233 Or 345 (1963), the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a "cause of action" (meaning a basis for legal liability) for false imprisonment may arise even if the period of confinement is for a few minutes and not a much longer period; hence, businesses cannot necessarily rely on the relatively short duration of improper confinement (e.g. a minute or two) to escape liability for false imprisonment. Ideally, there would be at least one case describing how the law applies (i.e. how a court would rule) to each possible business controversy. That way, a business could act both proactively (e.g. how to design its store to minimize negligence claims, how to properly prepare employee contracts to minimize claims for breach of contract, etc.) and reactively (e.g. exactly what to do if someone slips and falls, what to do if the business is sued, etc.) for every possible set of facts and circumstances. Of course, in reality, each event in life is a bit different from others. Hence, it is difficult to find a case "on all fours" (i.e. identical) to any particular set of actual facts and circumstances. However, cases can serve as extremely important guides for what to do--and what not to do--in business and in personal lives. Finding a "good case" (i.e. similar facts and circumstances to the issue or problem at hand) is important to lawyers and businesses alike in responding to lawsuits-and perhaps more importantly, in providing information on how to avoid them.
Don't be surprised when your business attorney enthusiastically says "I have found a great case for you" because attorneys are trained to find cases for use in good, proactive business planning and also to predict the outcome of legal controversies.
Assignment:
Pick a topic of in interest and express it in a few simple words-for instance, the words "real estate fraud" or "false imprisonment" or "battery." You can also add more specific words such as "store" or "stress" or "weapon." Then add the name of a court with your words-for instance "Oregon Court of Appeals" Google these terms. Many published cases will appear.
Any published state or federal case will be fine, but please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like suggestions.
For specific instructions, please see pages 30-31 and Appendix A in the text. If you wish, additional briefing instructions are available on-line under a search of "how to brief a case" or the like. Length should be approximately four to five pages, double spaced.
State v. Kuperus
Court of Appeals of Oregon
2011 Ore. App. Lexis 396 (2011)
Facts:
The defendant, Scott Russell Kuperus, II, and the victim were engaged in a physical altercation when the defendant bit off a segment of the victim's ear. There is a noticeable scar where the missing part of the ear should be and the victim needs to wear a prosthetic device.
The defendant was charged with first-degree assault and second-degree assault. Defendant requested that he be acquitted on both charges. Defendant disputed that teeth are not a dangerous weapon which is a required component of first-degree assault. He also argued that there was not enough evidence to prove second-degree assault because the victim did not endure a serious physical injury. The trail court denied his request and found the defendant guilty on both charges. The defendant appealed the trial court's ruling renewing his arguments.
The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the first-degree conviction and upheld the second-degree assault conviction. The court sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.
Issue:
1. Can teeth be considered a dangerous weapon?
2. Were the requirements of a serious physical injury met?
Decision:
1. No. The Oregon Court of Appeals found that defendant's own teeth are not a dangerous weapon and that the trial court made a mistake in rejecting defendant's request to drop the first-degree assault charge.
2. Yes. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state arguing that there was enough evidence to show that the victim suffered a serious physical injury.
Reason:
The Oregon Court of Appeals first concentrated on the defendant's dispute to his first-degree assault conviction. They originally looked at the wording and framework of the law. Under state law, first-degree assault is committed when a person intentionally uses a dangerous weapon to cause a serious physical injury. State law defines a dangerous weapon as any weapon used capable of causing serious physical injury. In order to prove first-degree assault by way of a dangerous weapon, the state needs to establish that the defendant's teeth are a weapon capable of causing serious physical injury. The trial court determined that teeth are a dangerous weapon but failed to state whether teeth are indeed a weapon. Since the trial court failed to specify whether teeth are a weapon, the court usually presumes that the trial court intended terms to have their plain meaning which in this case suggests that a weapon is something outside the human body and would not include the defendant's own teeth. Under a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon, the court held that a weapon is something with which a person is armed and fortified. Based on this decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that a defendant cannot arm himself with his own body, including his teeth, removing it from being considered a dangerous weapon for purposes of first-degree assault.The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that teeth cannot be considered a dangerous weapon for the purpose of establishing a basis for first-degree assault conviction of defendant.
The Oregon Court of Appeals turned to the defendant's request for the second-degree assault charges to be dropped because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the victim suffered a serious physical injury. According to state law, to be convicted of second-degree assault requires the defendant to have intentionally caused serious physical injury to someone else. Under state law, serious physical injury includes physical injury which causes serious and prolonged disfigurement. The lower portion of the victim's ear is noticeably missing and there is a visible scar. The victim needs to wear a prosthetic device. Based on the facts, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the victim suffered a serious and protracted disfigurement and, thus, a serious physical injury.The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state arguing that the trial court reasonably found that the victim suffered a serious and protracted disfigurement presenting sufficient evidence that the victim suffered a serious physical injury exists.