Case Brief—Peer Review Assignment 2022

You will be assigned another case brief to review and comment on. You must also use the rubric to assess each part of the case brief.

Notes on your peer review:

The reviews are anonymous, so you won’t know whose brief you’re reviewing, and you won’t know who reviewed yours.
You’re not assigning grades, but you’re reviewing the case brief against the standards set out in the rubric below.
Make sure to use the rubric in your evaluation—both for assessment and in your comments.
Be constructive with your comments. What is good about the case brief? What could use some improvement or additional attention?

Kyllo v. US rubric –

Criteria Ratings
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Facts
Who are the parties to the case? What is the underlying crime that led to this case? How did the case get to the Supreme Court?
Full credit
Answer summarizes, in the student’s own words, all of the relevant facts and the procedural history of the case. This section is focused only on the factual summary and not the other sections in the case brief.
Partial credit
Answer includes most of the facts and the procedural history of the case, but may miss some key facts or rely heavily on quoting from the case itself rather than summarizing in own words.
Needs improvement
Summary of the facts and procedural history is missing key elements, is unorganized, or missing.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Issue
What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law the court must address in this case?
Full credit
Answer provides a concise statement of the legal question that the court must address and resolve. This section focuses only on the legal issue and not the other sections in the case brief.
Partial credit
Answer addresses the legal question in part but may not be complete or may include discussion of other sections of the case brief.
Needs improvement
Answer does not address the legal question or may focus on factual issues that aren’t related to the law.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis
The court’s analysis of the existing laws and prior cases that may apply to this new case. In this section, summarize the court’s review of prior laws and its discussion of whether those laws must evolve and why.
Full credit
Answer summarizes, in the student’s own words, the court’s review of older laws that relate to this case and its discussion of whether those laws must change. Identifies why the court created any new rule that it is going to apply in this case. This section is focused only on the court’s summary of the law, and not the other sections in the case brief.
Partial credit
Answer addresses the prior laws and summarizes the court’s legal analysis in part. Answer may stray to other sections or rely heavily on quoting from the case itself rather than summarizing in own words.
Needs improvement
Summary of the court’s legal analysis is missing key elements, is unorganized, or missing key details.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Application
How does the law that the court has distilled in its analysis apply to the facts of this case? If the court created a new rule, how does it apply to these facts? The summary of the court’s application should consider the facts of the case that were important to the court’s conclusion.
Full credit
Answer summarizes, in the student’s own words, the court’s application of the law to the facts of this case. Details the facts that the court identified as important in reaching its conclusion or holding. This section is focused only on the court’s application of the law to the facts, and not the other sections in the case brief.
Partial credit
Answer summarizes the court’s application of the law to the facts, but with less detail or explanation. The answer may stray to other sections or rely heavily on quoting from the case itself rather than summarizing in own words.
Needs improvement
Summary of the court’s application of the law to the facts of the case is missing key elements, is unorganized, or missing key explanations.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Holding
What did the court decide to do with this particular case (i.e., affirm or reverse) and what is the court’s answer to the basic legal question posed in the issue section of the case brief?
Full credit
Answer reaches the correct outcome of the case and addresses the legal question posed in the issue statement. This section is focused only on the holding and not the other sections in the case brief.
Partial credit
Answer addresses the outcome without explanation of the legal question.
Needs improvement
Does not state the outcome or misstates the court’s holding. May not address the legal issue.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Rule
What rule of law is announced in this case? The rule should be stated as an abstract, general principle that can be applied to future cases involving this issue, using this case as precedent.
Full credit
Answer identifies the new rule that the court has created and states it in a concise way that can be applied to future cases with similar issues. This section is focused only on the rule and not the other sections in the case brief.
Partial credit
Answer identifies a rule, but the restatement of it addresses facts of this case, or it is missing elements of the rule.
Needs improvement
The summary of the court’s legal analysis is missing key elements, is unorganized, is missing key details, or is too general.
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Dissenting argument
What is the reasoning of the dissenting judges? How do they differ from the majority? Do they differ in the new rule or how it was applied or both?
Full credit
Answer summarizes, in the student’s own words, the dissenting opinion and fully explains why those justices disagreed with the majority and what the dissenting justices would do differently.
Partial credit
Answer addresses dissenting opinion in a cursory manner. Might rely heavily on quoting from the case itself rather than summarizing in own words.
Needs improvement
Summary of the dissenting opinion is missing key elements, is unorganized, or missing key details.