Legal Case Briefs
[ send me this essay ]
A 25 page document that contains short legal briefs on the following cases: Abrams v. US; Barron v. City of Baltimore; Brown v. Board of Education; Buckley v. Valeo; Cantwell v. State of Connecticut; Da Jonge v. Oregon; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire; Dred Scot v. Sanford; Engel v. Vitale; Everson v. Board of Education; Francis v. Resweber; Gitlow v. US; Griswold v. Connecticut; Mapp v. Ohio; Marbury v. Madison; McCollum v. Board of Education; Minersville School District v. Gobitis; N.Y. Times v. US; National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie; Near v. Minnesota; Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart; Palko v. Connecticut; Plessy v. Ferguson; Roe v. Wade; Schenck v. US; University of California v. Bakke; Weeks v. US; Wolf v. Colorado; and Worcester v. State of Georgia. These briefs are available in whole or in parts. Please email us for more information if you would like to purchase one or more individual briefs.
Filename: 99brfs29.rtf

Legal Memo / N.J. Supreme Court Decision # 1a
[ send me this essay ]
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Memo reviews and analyzes an key 1960 New Jersey Decision regarding manufacturer and dealer liability. Rather than strictly adhering to the fact that a sales contract was signed, the Court in this case looked at the predicament in which a buyer is placed when involved in such a large, technical purchase as an automobile. The court also examined marketing philosophy and the media used to advertise to better decide whether or not the defendants could truly be relieved of the responsibilities that the contract as claimed.
Filename: Legalme2.wps

Legal Memo / N.J. Supreme Court Decision # 1b
[ send me this essay ]
Broken down into sections, this is essentially a shorter version of Legalme2.wps, in which the analyst looks at legal issues and social policy to ultimately justify the Court's decision in this particular case.
Filename: Legalme3.wps

Legal Memorandum
[ send me this essay ]
A 7 page closed objective legal memorandum regarding a whether or not an insurance company should pay double indemnity for a death in which the deceased died because he placed a noose around his neck and cut off oxygen to his brain during the act of masturbation, suffocating when a pulley system jammed. The writer cites relevant case law and discusses the case relevant to a Missouri jurisdiction. No bibliography provided.
Filename: khlmemo.rtf

Legal Memorandum
[ send me this essay ]
This 11 page paper is an example of a legal memorandum for a fictitious case involving Royal Imperial Mutual Alliance Consolidated Insurance and an insured motorist. This legal memorandum applies Indiana State laws to the issue of uninsured motorists in the family of insured motorists, and supports the clients supposition of a prevailing judgment action against the insured. No bibliography.
Filename: LegMemo.wps

Legal Precedents and Illegal Proceedings
[ send me this essay ]
This 5 page paper gives four examples where improper procedures, not lack of evidence, ruined a case, and whether the arguments used were correct. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Filename: HVLegPrc.rtf

LIBYAN FOREIGN BANK VERSUS BANKERS TRUST COMPANY/ A CASE BRIEF
[ send me this essay ]
This 3 page paper is a case brief on the 1987 case between the Libyan Arab Bank versus the Bankers Trust company of New York and London. Overview and conclusions discussed. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Filename: MBliblaw.rtf

Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-60/00)
[ send me this essay ]
This 4 page paper is an outline of the case of Mary Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-60/00). The writer outlines the facts and then looks at the decision made by the European Court. The bibliography cites 3 sources.
Filename: TEcarptr.rtf

Memo: Aggravated Menacing Case
[ send me this essay ]
10 pages in length. Was Jack Flemming's intent to hurt his girlfriend, Trish, or was he merely venting the frustration of his very first heartbreak? Regardless of his ultimate intent, if any, he still was responsible for placing the threatening words where they could be openly viewed, which gave sufficient cause for concern toward aggravated menacing, violating R.C. 2903.21(A). No bibliography.
Filename: TLClegal2.wps