One case writeup, one discussion, and two replies
- Your write-up should be 1.25 to 2 pages (2.5 pages double spaced), single spaced, at standard type face (12 or 14 point).
- It should briefly (in very few sentences) lay out the basic facts of the case. These are usually generally agreed upon by the time it gets to final appeal stage; i.e., the Supreme Court of a Federal District court.
- What is much more important is the issue at law – the dispute about what the law means or how it should be interpreted.
- What was the majority of the court’s decision in the case, and – more importantly – what was the basicreasoning behind this decision?
- If you are asked to read a dissent in the case, what was the decision and reasoning in the minority?
- Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision? Explain why.
I will send you over this week’s materials shortly.
Here are the lecture slides and notes.
Here is this week’s discussion topic:
Historic Financial Scam: Michael Milken (1989)
Please research the above historic financial scam that connects to our laws today, present your learning to your group, learn from group members’ posts, and have conversations with others. Each original discussion post should explain:
- Who are the key players?
- What was the financial scam or scheme?
- What laws were violated? Or, if the scam is really old, what current laws would have been violated?
- What was the response to the scam of government regulators? Did it lead to any changes in the law?
Just like last week, we still need to go deeper into each of the 4 discussion questions with adequate support.
