MOOT COURT LESSONS 3,4 & 5: A Mini-Case Study
NAME: _____________________________
DIRECTIONS: -- Complete in class with your partner today and Friday.
FIRST, In your packet, on page 172, is an overview chart (Handout 3D). In preparing your own mock arguments for May, you will be expected to complete an overview chart for the case you argue, similar to this one. Read first the case summary sheets (pages 167-168). Then, for Tinker v. Des Moines (which we discussed earlier in the semester), in the space provided at the top of the overview chart, summarize what you consider to be the two strongest arguments for the Tinker children (Petitioner/Appellant); then, in the space provided, summarize the two strongest arguments for the school district (Respondent/Appellee); finally, in the last column, briefly state what you (if you were a justice) believe the court should have decided and why. Use page 170 (Handout 3B: Tinker v. Des Moines (1969))
Then, repeat the process with Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier(which we also discussed earlier in the semester). Before filling in the Overview Chart, however, read about the case on page 171 (Handout 3C: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier(1988))
THEN, read Handout 4A: Decisions in a Nutshell (page 175) and Handout 4B: Key Excerpts from the Hazelwood Decision (pages 176-177) and answer questions 1-6 on page 177 about the majority opinion (write the answers on the blank sheet in the packet after page 177) and questions 1-4 on page 178 about the dissenting opinion (write the answers on the second blank sheet after page 178.
NEXT, read Handout 5A: Can It Be Allowed in School and on the blank sheet in the packet after the handout, decide cases a through e.
FINALLY, read Handout 5B: Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District (page 183). Then write a school policy (directions -- page 184) at the bottom of page 184.
WHEN FINISHED, TURN IN THE ENTIRE PACKET, with this sheet (and any composition paper you use) inserted in the packet -- we will review the results later, along with your answers in lessons 1 and 2, in preparation for the moot court arguments.
DIRECTIONS: -- Complete in class with your partner today and Friday.
FIRST, In your packet, on page 172, is an overview chart (Handout 3D). In preparing your own mock arguments for May, you will be expected to complete an overview chart for the case you argue, similar to this one. Read first the case summary sheets (pages 167-168). Then, for Tinker v. Des Moines (which we discussed earlier in the semester), in the space provided at the top of the overview chart, summarize what you consider to be the two strongest arguments for the Tinker children (Petitioner/Appellant); then, in the space provided, summarize the two strongest arguments for the school district (Respondent/Appellee); finally, in the last column, briefly state what you (if you were a justice) believe the court should have decided and why. Use page 170 (Handout 3B: Tinker v. Des Moines (1969))
Then, repeat the process with Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier(which we also discussed earlier in the semester). Before filling in the Overview Chart, however, read about the case on page 171 (Handout 3C: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier(1988))
THEN, read Handout 4A: Decisions in a Nutshell (page 175) and Handout 4B: Key Excerpts from the Hazelwood Decision (pages 176-177) and answer questions 1-6 on page 177 about the majority opinion (write the answers on the blank sheet in the packet after page 177) and questions 1-4 on page 178 about the dissenting opinion (write the answers on the second blank sheet after page 178.
NEXT, read Handout 5A: Can It Be Allowed in School and on the blank sheet in the packet after the handout, decide cases a through e.
FINALLY, read Handout 5B: Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District (page 183). Then write a school policy (directions -- page 184) at the bottom of page 184.
WHEN FINISHED, TURN IN THE ENTIRE PACKET, with this sheet (and any composition paper you use) inserted in the packet -- we will review the results later, along with your answers in lessons 1 and 2, in preparation for the moot court arguments.