Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 64 views

    Case Brief Template 18

    Uploaded by

    fsbking
    The defendant appeals a lower court ruling awarding a police officer $500 for returning stolen jewels. The appellate court must determine if the officer was acting as a public official charged with a legal duty to solve crimes without reward when he made a verbal agreement with the defendant. After reviewing facts showing the officer's role and relationship with the prosecutor's office, the appellate court finds he was a public official barred from receiving rewards for fulfilling official duties. The court thus reverses the lower court decision in favor of the plaintiff officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Brief Template 18

    Uploaded by

    fsbking
    64 views2 pages
    The defendant appeals a lower court ruling awarding a police officer $500 for returning stolen jewels. The appellate court must determine if the officer was acting as a public official charged with a legal duty to solve crimes without reward when he made a verbal agreement with the defendant. After reviewing facts showing the officer's role and relationship with the prosecutor's office, the appellate court finds he was a public official barred from receiving rewards for fulfilling official duties. The court thus reverses the lower court decision in favor of the plaintiff officer.

    Original Description:

    An example of a case brief for law students

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant appeals a lower court ruling awarding a police officer $500 for returning stolen jewels. The appellate court must determine if the officer was acting as a public official charged with a legal duty to solve crimes without reward when he made a verbal agreement with the defendant. After reviewing facts showing the officer's role and relationship with the prosecutor's office, the appellate court finds he was a public official barred from receiving rewards for fulfilling official duties. The court thus reverses the lower court decision in favor of the plaintiff officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views2 pages

    Case Brief Template 18

    Uploaded by

    fsbking
    The defendant appeals a lower court ruling awarding a police officer $500 for returning stolen jewels. The appellate court must determine if the officer was acting as a public official charged with a legal duty to solve crimes without reward when he made a verbal agreement with the defendant. After reviewing facts showing the officer's role and relationship with the prosecutor's office, the appellate court finds he was a public official barred from receiving rewards for fulfilling official duties. The court thus reverses the lower court decision in favor of the plaintiff officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    SAMPLE BRIEF

    Gray (cop) v. Martino (crime victim)

    Procedural History

     Cop sues for reward money.


     District court awards money to the cop.
     Defendant appeals.

    Issue

    At the time the contract was formed, was the plaintiff acting as a police officer
    charged with a legal duty to catch criminals without further reward?

    Facts

     Plaintiff makes a verbal contract with defendant. In return for $500, plaintiff
    will find defendant's stolen jewels.
     Plaintiff had knowledge of whereabouts of jewels at contract formation.
     Plaintiff is a special police officer and has dealings with prosecutor's office.
     Defendant published advertisement for reward.
     Plaintiff finds stolen goods and arranges return.

    Rule of Law

    1. A public officer cannot demand or receive remuneration or a reward for


    carrying out the duty of his job as a matter of public policy and morality
    2. However, it is not against public policy for a police officer to receive a reward
    in performance of his legal duty if the legislature passes a statute giving the
    reward to the public at large in furtherance of some public policy - such as
    preventing treason against the US.

    Reasoning

     Court finds sufficient evidence to characterize this fellow as a public official.


     His interaction with the prosecutor's office weighed in as a factor in suggesting
    he had a legal duty.
     Since he is characterized within the rule as a public official, he cannot, as a
    matter of law, receive a reward for the performance of his duties.

    Holding
    Court reverses decision of lower court in favor of the plaintiff since he was
    characterized as a public official.

    You might also like