Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH AND WRITING MIDTERM REVIEW, Study notes of Law

Study guide assistance for the course Legal Research and Writing.

Typology: Study notes

2019/2020

Uploaded on 03/05/2020

aliciarenee_1672
aliciarenee_1672 🇺🇸

1 document

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
NOTE: There will be a Part A that governs jurisdiction, court and publication names,
case terminology, and other topics covered in the first class. You CANNOT use the
Bluebook for Part A.
The following is similar to what will be covered in PART B (use the exhibits
attached to Blackboard to complete this assignment)
1. PROVIDE ALL BLUEBOOK CITATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING
Assume that all citations are stand alone citations.
1. Lawrence A. Schmid, Plaintiff, versus Robert A. Frosch, Administrator of
NASA, Defendant. This case was decided in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia on January 30, 1985. It appears in volume 609,
page 490, of Federal Supplement.
Schmid v. Frosch, 609 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C 1985).
2. Uniform Laboratories Association, Incorporated versus Bahamas Municipal
Corporation, Incorporated. The case was decided by the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals on January 2, 2002 and is published in volume 100, page 100
of the Atlantic Reporter, Second Series and volume 567, page 100 of the
Maryland Appellate Reports. The case is being cited to a Maryland court.
Unif. Labs. Ass’n v. Bah. Mun. Corp., Inc., 567 Md. 100, 100 A. 2d 100 (2002).
3. The citation in #2 if the case was being cited to an out-of-state court.
Unif. Labs Ass’n v. Bah. Mun. Corp., Inc.,100 A. 2d 100 (Md. 2002).
4. General Store, Plaintiff versus National Personal Trainer of Maryland versus
John P. Smith. The case was decided on February 15, 2003 by the Maryland
Court of Appeals and was published in volume 567, page 100 of the Atlantic
Reporter, Second Series and in volume 100, page 200 of the Maryland
Reports. The case is being cited to a Maryland court.
Gen. Store v. Nat’l Pers. Trainer of Md., 100 Md. 200, 567 A. 2d 100 (2003).
5. The citation in #4 if the case was being cited to an out-of-state court.
Gen. Store v. Nat’l Pers. Trainer of Md., 567 A. 2d 100 (Md. 2003).
6. United States of America versus John P. Black and Susan P. Melley. The case
was decided on March 3, 1996 by the Maryland Court of Appeals and was
published in volume 567, page 100 of the Atlantic Reporter, Second Series and
in volume 100, page 200 of the Maryland Reports. The case is being cited to a
Maryland court.
U.S. v. Black, 100 Md. 200, 567 A. 2d 100 (1996).
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH AND WRITING MIDTERM REVIEW and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

NOTE : There will be a Part A that governs jurisdiction, court and publication names, case terminology, and other topics covered in the first class. You CANNOT use the Bluebook for Part A. The following is similar to what will be covered in PART B (use the exhibits attached to Blackboard to complete this assignment)

  1. PROVIDE ALL BLUEBOOK CITATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING Assume that all citations are stand alone citations.
    1. Lawrence A. Schmid, Plaintiff, versus Robert A. Frosch, Administrator of NASA, Defendant. This case was decided in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on January 30, 1985. It appears in volume 609, page 490, of Federal Supplement. Schmid v. Frosch, 609 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C 1985).
    2. Uniform Laboratories Association, Incorporated versus Bahamas Municipal Corporation, Incorporated. The case was decided by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals on January 2, 2002 and is published in volume 100, page 100 of the Atlantic Reporter , Second Series and volume 567, page 100 of the Maryland Appellate Reports. The case is being cited to a Maryland court. Unif. Labs. Ass’n v. Bah. Mun. Corp., Inc., 567 Md. 100, 100 A. 2d 100 (2002).
    3. The citation in #2 if the case was being cited to an out-of-state court. Unif. Labs Ass’n v. Bah. Mun. Corp., Inc.,100 A. 2d 100 (Md. 2002).
    4. General Store, Plaintiff versus National Personal Trainer of Maryland versus John P. Smith. The case was decided on February 15, 2003 by the Maryland Court of Appeals and was published in volume 567, page 100 of the Atlantic Reporter, Second Series and in volume 100, page 200 of the Maryland Reports. The case is being cited to a Maryland court. Gen. Store v. Nat’l Pers. Trainer of Md., 100 Md. 200, 567 A. 2d 100 (2003).
    5. The citation in #4 if the case was being cited to an out-of-state court. Gen. Store v. Nat’l Pers. Trainer of Md., 567 A. 2d 100 (Md. 2003).
    6. United States of America versus John P. Black and Susan P. Melley. The case was decided on March 3, 1996 by the Maryland Court of Appeals and was published in volume 567, page 100 of the Atlantic Reporter , Second Series and in volume 100, page 200 of the Maryland Reports. The case is being cited to a Maryland court. U.S. v. Black, 100 Md. 200, 567 A. 2d 100 (1996).
  1. The citation in #6 if you were citing the case to an out-of-state court. U.S. v. Black, 567 A. 2d 100 (Md.1996).
  2. W.R. Grace and Company versus Maryland Casualty Company, et al. This case was decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court on September 30, 1992. It appears in volume 600, page 176, of North Eastern Reporter, Second Series. It is being cited to a Maryland court. W.R. Grace & Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 600 N.E. 2d 176 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992).
  3. AS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1: a. What court decided this case at the trial court level? District Court b. Who wrote the opinion in this case? All the judge wrote the opinion together. c. What subject and key number are associated with headnote 3?

Administrative Law & Procedure. d. Provide the Bluebook citation to the case as you would cite it to a Maryland court Timus v. Dist. of Columbia dep’t. Of Human Rights, 633 A. 2d 751 (D.C.C. 1993).

  1. AS TO THE MARYLAND CASE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 2 a. What is the docket number? No. 882 b. Which judges heard the oral argument in this case? Davis. c. On what page is headnote 4 discussed in the case? Page 982. d. Provide the Bluebook citation to this case:
  2. as you would cite it to a Maryland court Hickman v. Maryland, 193 Md. 238, 996 A. 2d 974 (2010).
  3. as you would cite it to an out of state court Hickman v. Maryland, 996 A. 2d 974 (Md. 2010). 4. AS TO THE MARYLAND STATUTE THAT IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 3, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: a. What is the Bluebook citation to the statute, assuming that the statute appears in BOTH the 2010 volume and in the 2013 supplement? Md. Code Ann., Tax-Gen §11-408 (West 2010, West Supp. 2013). b. What is the name of the case that interprets the statute as it relates to “design”? Comptroller of Treas. v. Atlas Gen. Indus. 5. LOOK AT THE SUPREME COURT CASE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 4 AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. a. Which Justice wrote the opinion in the case? Breyer b. What is the docket number? No. 04-759. 2