Order Assignment Via WhatsApp Now

Introduction To Paralegal Studies

1. Prepare the Notice of Appeal and the Cover Page for Sam Kant’s appellate brief that was assigned in Lesson Three. The trial court and the correct appellate court should be based on your jurisdiction.

2.Explain the difference between an external memo of law and an internal memo of law.

3. Brief any cases that you are planning on citing to in your appellate brief that was assigned in lesson 3. Refer to Statsky Chapter 7 for briefing opinions.

Sample Answer

1.
See the attachment for the completed Notice of Appeal. The Cover Page remains the same as used in the Appellate Brief.

2.
Legal Definition of an Internal Memo describes it as a note which is sent by a junior attorney to a senior attorney in a Law Office. Such a memo is usually used for assessing all the legal aspects connected with a client’s case and these could be in favour of or against the client. It is sometimes referred as ‘A Legal Brief’ and involves a comment on a motion or any other issue which arises during the trial period. An External Memo can also be a communication or a brief but it is used for sharing the information or comments with an external source, such as the client or another attorney, sometimes those of the opposing party.

3.
Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881

This case addresses the question raised by two issues. The first issue concerns the classification of an item of personal property as real property for taxation purposes. The second issue concerns the review of on appeal after this test has been conducted by the trial court. The classification should be based on whether a reasonable person can consider the property in question as a real property, after taking into consideration the adaptation and other objective parameters of permanence. Moreover, the trial court's assessment should be an independent one.

People V. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889
The petition for review by the Court of Appeal was affirmed on one issue and reversed on the second issue concerning the conviction of criminal offenses. On the first issue, the court specified for review of issues concerning the trial court's determination that the People had exercised "due diligence" in the presence of a witness at trial. The second issue was concerned with an independent review standard was adopted by the People while exercising "due diligence" in obtaining the presence of the witness during the case.

People V. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181
Whether a Petition for Review can be granted after the Court of Appeal has modified the sentence and affirmed the judgment of conviction of the criminal offenses framed. The court was concerned whether the People have the right to seek an abstract of the judgment to be corrected on appeal when it fails to reflect that the sentence was orally imposed by the trial court.

United States V. McConney (9th Cir. 1984) 728 F.2d 1195
In summary, the analysis of the court was that there is no litmus test through which all the questions connected with a trial can be effectively categorized. Such a test can never "unerringly distinguish between findings of fact and conclusions of law”. The court was of the opinion that if the courts focus on the nature of inquiry required for determining if the established facts can be fitted within the relevant legal definition, then a neutral test can be employed which may reflect the concerns which properly underline the standard of review jurisprudence.

 

Click here Order Now to get your plagiarised free custom paper