Select Page

Step 1. Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Step 2. Make Payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Step 3. Receive your paper

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

United States v. Virginia (VMI) 518 U.S. 515 (1996) How

by | Jun 19, 2022 | English | 0 comments

Get Help With Your Essay

"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

 

United States v. Virginia (VMI) 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
<
<

<
<
How To Apply Lehal Reasoning in Any Situation
<
<
When asked to apply legal reasoning to a fact pattern, please follow this outline.
<
<
<
FACTS:
<
Identify and list the key facts, selected from the information presented to you. (Short bulleted list)
<
<
ISSUE:
<
Write the question of law raised by the facts; include one or more facts to put the question into the context of the current situation. (One sentence)
<
<
RULE OF LAW:
<
Identify and describe the rule of law or common law principle applicable to the issue, from the material covered in the relevant chapter. (One sentence, NOT a statute or constitutional provision!)
<
<
ANALYSIS (application):
<
Using the key elements of the rule of law you just wrote to structure your analysis, apply the facts to each element and determine whether each element has been met by a fact. (One sentence for each element)
<
<
CONCLUSION:
<
Using the language of the issue, write an affirmative statement answering the question raised by the issue. (One sentence, just like the issue sentence)
<
<
FOR EXAMPLE:
<
<
Here’s an example of applying legal reasoning to a fact pattern using a FIRAC analysis.
<
<
Facts:
<
<
Dani creates danger
<
<
Efron is injured
<
<
Fab attempts rescue and is injured
<
<
Gert sees all this but does nothing
<
<
Issue
<
<
Whether Gert is liable for Efron’s and Fab’s injuries when she does nothing to help?
<
<
Rule
<
<
Under the “No Duty to Rescue” doctrine, bystanders are not liable for victims’ injuries.
<
<
Analysis
<
<
Bystander: Gert stood by and did nothing to help either Efron or Fab who were injured.
<
<
Conclusion
<
<
No, Gert has no duty to rescue anyone so is not liable for Efron’s and Fab’s injuries even though she does nothing to help.

For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now

 

Categories