Case Study
Description
ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Case Study
Just from $15/Page
Brief Frontier Leasing Corp. v. Links Engineering, LLC
Brief Frontier Leasing Corp. v. Links Engineering, LLC on p. 1015-1016. Use pages 29-30 for reference. Your brief should be 1 to 2 pages in Times New Roman font, 12 point. In your brief, you should include the following information:
Possible questions to answer would be: Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?
- What is the history of the case?
Possible questions to answer would be: Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision? Please note that this is the history of the case in court—not the facts of the case.
Possible questions to answer would be: What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue? What facts did the court find relevant in their decision?
- What is the plaintiff’s theory?
Possible questions to answer would be: Why he thinks he should win? What facts does the plaintiff think are important?
- What is the defendant’s theory?
Possible questions to answer would be: Why she thinks she should win? What facts does the defendant think are important?
Tip: this will be a question that can be answered with yes or no and should end with a question mark.
- What is the holding of the Court?
Tip: this will be either yes or no and will answer the legal issue.
- What is the reasoning of the Court?
Possible questions to answer would be: what facts and laws did the Court rely on to decide the case?; why the case was decided in the winner’s favor?; why did the other side lose
- Evaluative Question: What do you think about this case? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?
VIEW ALL UNIT PAGES
Rubric
MG260 Case Study (4)
MG260 Case Study (4)
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent |
| 25.0 to >23.0 ptsContent is focused and specific; correctly identifies all the brief elements–parties, history, etc. Legal issue is clearly identified. |
23.0 to >19.9 ptsContent is clear but in limited places has a shifting focus or lacks specificity; correctly identifies the legal issue; most of the remaining brief elements are correct |
19.9 to >17.4 ptsContent is clear, but in multiple places has shifting focus and lacks specificity. Legal issues are identified but not in clear or specific in detail; the remaining brief elements are correct with some mistakes |
17.4 to >14.0 ptsContent is unclear, inconsistent, or incomplete; legal issue is not correctly identified; few of remaining brief elements are correct |
14.0 to >0 ptsContent is unclear and limited; legal issue is not correctly identified or is missing; most remaining brief elements are incorrect |
|
25.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis |
| 15.0 to >13.4 ptsPresents an exemplary and thorough analysis; answers questions with logical, concise, and clear reasoning |
13.4 to >11.9 ptsPresents an insightful and thorough analysis; answers questions with logical reasoning |
11.9 to >10.4 ptsPresents a thorough analysis; understandable answers to questions |
10.4 to >5.9 ptsMakes at effort at analysis, but reasoning is unclear or inconsistent; answers to questions are not thorough or consistent |
5.9 to >0 ptsSuperficial or incomplete analysis or makes no effort at analysis; answers to questions are irrelevant or incomprehensible |
|
15.0 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppearance (Grammar/Readability) |
| 10.0 to >8.9 ptsNo more than 1 grammar error; effective word choice and sentence variety; superior facility with the conventions of standard written English; ideas are developed logically with flow between sentences and paragraphs |
8.9 to >7.9 ptsFew grammar errors (< 3); competent word choice and sentence variety; competence with the conventions of standard written English; ideas expressed with clear overall organization |
7.9 to >6.9 ptsSome grammar errors (4-7); word choice and sentence structure are unvaried; average familiarity with standard written English; ideas loosely organized with inadequate transitions; some ideas are illogical or unrelated |
6.9 to >3.9 ptsGrammar needs work (8-10 errors); poor word choice and sentence structure; below average familiarity with standard written English; ideas are not coherently expressed; overall organization is lacking |
3.9 to >0 ptsFrequent grammar errors (>10); significant problems in word choice or sentence structure; ideas not developed or organized; uneven or ineffective overall organization |
|
10.0 |
