A brief is a written summary of the case. To prepare one, you must distill the case's most important parts and restate them in your own words. The effort will provide a variety of important benefits. First, to describe a case accurately, you must read it carefully and thoroughly. Describing the case in your own words forces you to determine exactly what the courts said, which concepts and facts were essential to its decision, and the proper legal terminology and procedures.
NOTE:
Extended answers are not being sought in responding to questions. Addressing all questions listed should not result in more than one to one and a half pageswith all typed responses. Please organize your assignment by restating the questions followed by responses in paragraph form.
This is what the instructor want in the Assignment:
Assignment:
You are assigned to review and address questions pertaining to actual court cases. Although other legal issues may be involved, these cases were selected because each addresses questions of contract law, contractual relationships, and breach of contract questions. You will find the cases assigned under the "Cases" tab of our LibGuide. I am not requesting you to prepare a full "case brief" but you might find the information under the "Writing Case Briefs" helpful as you determine an approach to addressing the questions posed. This assignment should not require more than one to one and a half pages. Be prepared to share your case in class following the order of the questions listed. Your papers should have your name on the top followed by the court case as cited.
Example:
Steve Stanford
Abu-Shawareb, Appellant, v. South Carolina State University, Respondent
Questions to be answered pertaining to your assigned case:
1) Who is the complainant and who is the defendant in the case? (who is bringing the suit, and against whom)
2) What are the basic facts of the case? (what happened)
3) What are the legal issues? (refer to "Administrative Case Briefs" under the "Writing Case Briefs" tab)
4) What was the court's decision? (verdict)
5) What was the court's rationale and/or reason given for its decision?
NOTE: You are not attorneys so are not expected to overuse legal jargon nor apply complicated legal nuances in your answers. Although some legal terms cannot be avoided, and are good to know as professionals, you should have a basic, "professional administrator's" understanding of their meaning when applied. That stated, I expect to see clear and understandable "practitioners" language (your own words) in your answers as you address a case's basic facts, issues, findings, and court's reasoning(s) for its decisions. Doing so in your written assignment will allow you to be able to effectively explain the case to your classmates in class (as you might do with fellow-professionals if considering administrative matters and/or assist with decision-making).
Assigned Cases
ERIC OJA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE; MICHAEL SHEA; TRAVIS KIRKLAND, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-35534
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
184 Fed. Appx. 597; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14094
November 14, 2005, Argued and Submitted, Portland, Oregon
June 5, 2006, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended July 20, 2006.
Rehearing granted by, in part, Vacated by, Amended by Oja v. Blue Mt. Cmty. College, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287 (9th Cir. Or., July 20, 2006)
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. D.C. No. CV-03-00964-PA. Owen M. Panner, Senior Judge, Presiding.
Oja v. Blue Mt. Cmty. College, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9641 (D. Or., May 19, 2004)
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff professor challenged a judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, a community college and two individuals, in the professor's action in which he asserted a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim. Specifically, he alleged that he was denied a property interest in his employment without due process of law.
OVERVIEW: In addition to his § 1983 claim, the professor asserted claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and fraud. On appeal, the court held that, pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 341.290 (2003), the professor did not have a valid employment contract until it was approved by the college's board of education. Because the board did not approve the contract, he did not have a property interest in his employment; thus, his 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim, as well as his breach of contract and breach of covenant claims, failed. The promissory estoppel claim failed because only the board could make a binding promise.
The professor's fraud claim against the college failed because he could not show that he justifiably relied on a false representation, as any offer was not within the college's lawful powers without board approval. However, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of one of the individuals on the misrepresentation claim because that individual was the person with authority to advise people in the professor's position whether he would be hired. That individual did advise the professor that he would be hired.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment as to the professor's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim, his breach of contract claim, his breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, his promissory estoppel claim, and his fraud claim against the college. The court reversed the judgment in favor of the one individual defendant on the misrepresentation claim and remanded the matter to the district court.
CORE TERMS: employment contract, property interest, binding, summary judgment, non-renewal, good faith, fair dealing, promissory estoppel, false representation, community college, termination, terminated, hiring, breach of contract, administrative procedures, entitlement, contractual, teaching, approve, at-will, binding contract, misrepresentation claim, probationary employee, private interest, deprivation, ambiguity, personnel, covenant, genuine, notice