Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Pages:
3 pages/≈825 words
Sources:
1 Source
Style:
APA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Case Study
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 12.96
Topic:

Case Law: Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey (2015)

Case Study Instructions:

https://caselaw(dot)findlaw(dot)com/nj-supreme-court/1692580.html
Student brief Structure
These can be extensive or short, depending on the depth of analysis required and the demands of the instructor. A comprehensive brief includes the following elements:
1. Title and Citation
Make sure you write the full citation as set forth in the case. For example the U.S. Supreme Court is usually cited as follows (example), "Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)"; The NJ Supreme Court, likewise is cited usually, as follows (example), "Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (2004)." The title of the case shows who is opposing whom. The name of the person who initiated legal action in that particular court will always appear first. Since the losers often appeal to a higher court, this can get confusing. The first section of this guide shows you how to identify the players without a scorecard.
The citation tells how to locate the reporter of the case in the appropriate case reporter. If in the future, you do not know how to cite a certain court, google it - there are plenty of online sources.
2. Facts of the Case
A good student brief will include a summary of the pertinent facts and legal points raised in the case. It will show the nature of the litigation, who sued whom, based on what occurrences, and what happened in the lower court/s.
The facts are often conveniently summarized at the beginning of the court’s published opinion. Sometimes, the best statement of the facts will be found in a dissenting or concurring opinion. WARNING! Judges are not above being selective about the facts they emphasize. This can become of crucial importance when you try to reconcile apparently inconsistent cases, because the way a judge chooses to characterize and “edit” the facts often determines which way he or she will vote and, as a result, which rule of law will be applied.
The fact section of a good student brief will include the following elements:
A one or two-sentence description of the nature of the case, to serve as an introduction.
A statement of the relevant law, which allows us to draw attention to the key issue/s that are in dispute. This may take you a couple of sentences
A summary of the relevant facts to explain who did what to whom. Be precise as to what was alleged by one arty against another.
A summary of actions taken by the lower courts, for example: "Plaintiff's case dismissed; Plaintiff appealed; The trial court's decision was affirmed by appellate court; Supreme Court granted certiorari; Supreme Court reversed appellate court's decision and remanded for a new trial."
3. Issues
The issues or questions of law raised by the facts peculiar to the case are often stated explicitly by the court.
With rare exceptions, the outcome of an appellate case will turn on the meaning of a provision of the Constitution, a law, or a judicial doctrine/theory. Capture that provision or debated point in your restatement of the issue.
When noting issues, it may help to phrase them in terms of questions that can be answered with a precise “yes” or “no.” An acceptable means of framing issues would be as follows: "The NJ Supreme Court in John Doe v. Saul Goodman, decided the issue of: "Are all employees in NJ that merely sign applications and begin work without contracts or union protections at will-employees?" The NJ Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, stating that employees that have received no written, oral, or implied representations of just-case employment are at-will employees.
NOTE: Many students misread cases because they fail to see the issues in terms of the applicable law or judicial doctrine than for any other reason. There is no substitute for taking the time to frame carefully the questions, so that they actually incorporate the key provisions of the law in terms capable of being given precise answers. When reading, it may also help to label the issues if there are more than one.
4. Decisions
The decision, or holding, is the court’s answer to a question presented to it for answer by the parties involved or raised by the court itself in its own reading of the case. There are narrow procedural holdings, for example, “case reversed and remanded,” broader substantive holdings which deal with the interpretation of the Constitution, statutes, or judicial doctrines. If the issues have been drawn precisely, the holdings can be stated in simple “yes” or “no” answers or in short statements taken from the language used by the court.
5. Reasoning
The reasoning, or rationale, is the chain of argument which led the judges in either a majority or a dissenting opinion to rule as they did. This should be outlined in a paragraph
6. Separate Opinions
Four our purposes, the focus should be on the majority opinion. This does not mean that you will not be responsible for understanding the dissenting or concurring opinions. For those dissenting/concurring opinions, a few sentences stating why the dissenting/concurring judges disagreed (dissent) or concurred (agreed with the outcome but not for the same reasons set forth by the majority).
7. Analysis
Here the student should evaluate the significance of the case and its impact on future litigants, government, or society.
A cautionary note
Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or distortions of precedent. Then ask, How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?

Case Study Sample Content Preview:

Case Law: Aguas v. State (2015)
Student Full Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Full Title
Instructor Full Name
Due Date
Case Law: Aguas v. State (2015)
Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey refers to a 2015 case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the federal standard concerning employer liability in cases of workplace sexual harassment. The New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) developed a written policy in 1999 outlawing workplace discrimination and authorizing employee training on the policy. Besides defining what characterizes as sexual harassment, the DOC policy placed certain special duties on supervisors in creating and sustaining a work environment free from any kind of harassment or discrimination. The written policy imposed sanctions on supervisors who refused to carry out their special responsibilities, including termination of employment. Moreover, the policy outlined reporting and investigation dealings in accordance with the State of New Jersey Model Procedures and banned any form of reprisal against complaining employees.
In the case of Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey, the plaintiff (a corrections officer) accused two of her superiors of sexual harassment and further asserted negligence on the part of the employer as well as vicarious liability claims in accordance with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Aguas was hired as a Corrections Officer Recruit in 2004 by the DOC at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women. She was promoted to the Senior Corrections Officer position during the assigned hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Although the plaintiff admitted to receiving a copy of the DOC policy on anti-discrimination and harassment, she disaffirmed receiving any training on the same. Aguas claimed that her supervisor (Darryl McClish), who was the highest-ranking supervisor at Edna Mahan, sexually assaulted her a number of times, beginning in October 2009 (FindLaw, 2015). The plaintiff alleges that McClish continued harassing her despite her repeated warnings to stop and that other corrections officers purposely refused to intervene despite witnessing the inappropriate conduct.
On the other hand, McClish denied all accusations in their entirety, maintaining that the incidences reported by Aguas did not occur. Furthermore, the plaintiff contended that Hill, another of her supervisor, discriminated against her by hyper-scrutinizing and selectively reprimanding her for uniform violations. Aguas reported the sexual harassments to the highest officer in command and even met with the assistant administrator but she rejected the latter’s suggestion of reporting the harassment in writing for the reason that she feared reprisals. Aguas filed for claims ...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

👀 Other Visitors are Viewing These APA Case Study Samples:

HIRE A WRITER FROM $11.95 / PAGE
ORDER WITH 15% DISCOUNT!