Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / CHAPTER 4 What exactly is the litigation process [what happens in a lawsuit]? Lawyers must decide whether or not a particular state or federal court has jurisdiction over a dispute
CHAPTER 4
What exactly is the litigation process [what happens in a lawsuit]?
Lawyers must decide whether or not a particular state or federal court has jurisdiction over a dispute. What district or county court or Federal court is the correct place to file? Is the plaintiff the right person to sue? Do they have 'standing'?
Cases usually begin with the filing of a Complaint and then the service of a Summons notifying the Defendant that they have a limited period of time to respond to the the court and the Plaintiff. A Defendant will typically file an Answer and may also seek dismissal of the lawsuit on procedural or other grounds. Trials typically occur after a period of many months during which time the parties seek and exchange information including statements of witnesses and relevant documents or other evidence. If a case cannot be resolved the court will schedule a trial. At the trial pre-trial orders and rules of evidence strictly control what may be said by a witness or entered into evidence to be considered by a judge or a jury.
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Litigation is both time consuming and expensive. Is there a better way? There are a number of options for parties who seek to augment or avoid litigation altogether. The catch? The parties must agree. Alternative dispute resolution in order to be binding upon the parties must agree to substitute an alternative process foregoing their right to a trial before a judge or a jury. If most people were able to compromise and agree they probably would have already resolved their differences. Sometimes a judge will encourage the parties to seek alternatives. I had a case where the parties resolved their case through professional private mediation after a trial but before the court issued a decision!
|
|
Case Briefing and Legal Study Tips appeal? 6. What rules of law and reasoning does the appel- |
712 Appendix I
terms. You can find the terms in the glossary of this textbook, but to make it easier, we will define several new terms for you:
appellant The losing party at the district court level. appellee The prevailing party in the district court who is responding to the appellant. appeal To ask a higher court to decide whether an inferior court (e.g., trial court) made a legal mis- take in its decision; also to ask a higher court to review (decide) the case.
dissent To disagree with both the result and the legal reasoning of the majority opinion. opinion The court’s decision in a case. petitioner The losing party in the court of appeals who asks (i.e., “petitions”) the Supreme Court to decide whether the lower court made a mistake. respondent The prevailing party in the court of appeals who is responding to the petitioner. reversed What an appeals court says when it dis- agrees with the court beneath it. If it agrees with the lower court, it says “affirmed.”
CASE BRIEF
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebel- ius, 567 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) How do i read this citation?
· “National Federation of Independent Business” refers to the petitioner.
· “v” means versus or against.
· “Sebelius” refers to the respondent.
· 567 is the volume number of the official U.S.
Supreme Court Reporter, and __ refers to the page number where the case begins (once it is assigned a page number). The date, 2012, is the year when the case was decided.
Facts Twenty-six states, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business (plaintiffs) brought this action against the federal Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor departments and their Secretaries (defendants), in fed- eral district court, challenging the constitutionality of two aspects of the Affordable Care Act: the individual mandate and the expansion to Medicaid.
Procedural History This case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claim that the
Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional. Because the court concluded that the individual mandate provision exceeded congressional authority and was not severable, it declared the entire Affordable Care Act invalid.
On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, the circuit judges agreed that the individual mandate was uncon- stitutional, affirmed as to the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion, but reversed the determination about severability.
The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues Appealed The key issues on appeal were:
1. Whether the individual mandate, imposing a min- imum essential coverage requirement, is within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Whether the provision giving the federal govern- ment the authority to penalize states that chose not to participate in the expansion of the Medic- aid program exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause.
Who Wins and Why?
1. Although the Supreme Court found that the indi- vidual mandate exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, it was upheld as a “tax” pursuant to Congress’s taxing powers.
2. The statutory provision giving the federal govern- ment the authority to penalize states that chose not to participate in the expansion of Medicaid exceeded Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause.
What Does This Mean? Overall, this case was seen as a victory for the proponents of the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate requir- ing nonexempt individuals to purchase and maintain minimum essential health care coverage was upheld. Although the Supreme Court found that the statutory provision giving the federal government the authority to penalize states that chose not to participate in the expansion of the Medicaid program exceeded Con- gress’s authority, it also held that this penalization provision was severable. As such, only the provision is unenforceable. In all other respects, the Afford- able Care Act was left intact. Although the law and its implementation continue to face challenges, health care exchanges opened in the fall of 2013 to facilitate the purchase of health insurance in every state.