Description
1)To complete this assignment I would like a 1 page case brief high-lighting to most important aspects of the case. This is difficult. I want you to try your best in completing this. Points will be awarded for effort. Do not write in an essay form. You are outlining here. Think of it as dissecting the case into understandable parts. The main things that you are always looking for is what rule did this case set that I can apply to future cases.
Access the case and instructions (see attachment 1)
Assessment:
Attempting to fully understand each section of a memo 15 points
1 or 2 sections are not fully developed or understood 12 points
Missed the purpose of a brief by not outline or concisely understanding 9 points
Limited understanding of how to read a case 5 points
****The Attachment 2 is the sample of CASE BRIEF
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2? Part 1: Take a Stand! (150 words) (4 points)
Should commercial speech be protected by the First Amendment? (Must answer yes or no in a thesis)
Part 2: Apply your Stand! (150 words) (4 points)
Think about how the First Amendment may affect you as an employee. These trends are changing in the current political climate. They are extending to dress, commenting through out the workplace and even posting on social media.
Should your first amendment protection extend to you as an employee?
CASE BRIEFING
A case brief is a summary of the important components of an opinion: the essential facts
of the case, the prior proceedings, the issue(s) before the court, and what the court decided and
why. Writing case briefs helps you to focus on the important aspects of the case and serves as a
useful reference during class. Different professors may ask you to brief cases in different ways.
Below is an example of a typical format for a case brief. If a professor asks for a slightly
different format, be sure to use that format in his or her class. Despite deviations in format, all
professors expect you to abstract essentially the same information. Be concise. Briefs should
usually be only one or two pages long.
Before briefing a case, read it at least two or three times. Then, at the top of the page,
write the name of the case and its formal citation. Finally, discuss each of the following sections
of the brief in the order given.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Tell who is suing whom for what.
Tell how the lower court ruled in the case.
Identify which party appealed to which court and the relief requested.
FACTS:
Summarize the essential facts that led to the lawsuit, focusing on the facts you think were
important to the court in deciding the case.
ISSUE(S):
Specify the issue(s), or question(s), in controversy in the case on appeal.
Each issue should be written in the form of a separate question.
HOLDING:
Each holding is the answer to each issue, or question, before the court.
The holding is usually a rephrasing of the issue from a question to a declarative sentence.
REASONING:
Explain the court’s reasoning in reaching its decision.
Identify any public policy considerations.
Note significant dicta.
DISSENT/CONCURRENCE:
Describe important points made in dissenting or concurring opinions.
1
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY – EDITED CASE
643 So.2d 42, 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2038
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Jon M. BOWDOIN, Appellant,
v.
ANCHOR CAB, Appellee.
No. 93-754.
Sept. 22, 1994.
Taxi cab driver sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Department of Labor and
Economic Security, William D.
Douglas
Name=0230307001&FindType=h&AP=&mlac=FY&fn=_top&rs=WLW6.08&mt=LawS
choolPractitioner&vr=2.0&sv=Split, Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC), denied
benefits on grounds that claimant was independent contractor. Claimant appealed. The
District Court of Appeal held that claimant was employee. Reversed and remanded.
In this workers’ compensation case, claimant Jon M. Bowdoin appeals the order of the
judge of compensation claims (JCC) denying his claim for benefits on the ground that
claimant was an independent contractor. We reverse and remand. [FN1]
FN1. Claimant raises two issues which we decline to address in light of our
disposition of the employee/independent contractor issue.
Claimant worked as a driver of an Anchor Cab from October 4, 1990, through October
14, 1990, when he was struck by a passenger, suffering injuries to the face, neck and
right leg. Appellee Anchor Cab denied the claim for benefits on the ground that claimant
was *43 an independent contractor. The following facts were adduced at the hearing on
the claim. Mr. Del Pino was the owner of Anchor Cab. He leased the vehicles to drivers
such as claimant for a flat daily rate of $47.00 or $25.00 on Sunday. He was responsible
for equipping the vehicles with a radio, meter and provided liability insurance.
Each of the taxi cabs bore the name of “Anchor Cab” on its sides. Of extreme
significance was Del Pino’s testimony that there were no governmental regulations in New
Port Richey pertaining to or controlling the daily operation of taxi cabs. The only
requirements were that one entering the taxi business must obtain a business license and
drivers must have a commercial driver’s license. Del Pino acknowledged that he
established the fares to be charged. Each driver, however, was permitted to charge less
than the meter rate if he or she wished. Del Pino’s principal contention at the hearing and
on appeal was that he was in the business of leasing vehicles rather than operating a cab
company. Anchor Cab had no rules governing the conduct of drivers except that they
should be neat and clean. Del Pino determined the location of each taxi stand. Drivers
could refuse to pick up fares without fear of reprimand. As long as the driver paid the
daily leasing fee, Del Pino was satisfied. Drivers could be terminated without notice and
were not permitted to moonlight for other companies and not permitted to use the
dispatch system of other companies to obtain fares. Drivers were required to maintain a
“trip sheet” documenting where they picked up and dropped off each customer, but Del
Pino testified that this was required by either the Department of Transportation or the
New Port Richey Sheriff’s Office.
Del Pino’s radio dispatcher, Arthur Lee Lewis, confirmed that each driver could refuse
to pick up a fare. Lewis added that he would ask why the driver refused the fare so he
2
would know not to refer a particular customer to that driver in the future. Describing the
operation of the company, Lewis stated that a driver would pick up fares, collect money
and keep whatever money remained after payment of the leasing fee and the cost of
gasoline. Lewis also confirmed that drivers could charge less but not more than the
established meter rate.
Claimant’s testimony was largely consistent with that of Del Pino with the following
exceptions. Claimant stated that he was assigned to work the day shift because Del Pino
didn’t need him to work the night shift. Claimant contended that Anchor Cab had a
written dress code concerning the length of shorts, type of shirts and hair. Claimant said
there was an unwritten rule that customers must be driven from point A to point B by the
straightest route possible. Claimant also added that he was once disciplined for refusing a
customer’s demand to cut across private property as a short cut. Claimant could not
sublease, hire assistants or work for another cab company. Claimant stated that if he
refused to pick up an HRS customer he would not be permitted to take another HRS
passenger.
The JCC found that claimant leased his vehicle for a 24-hour period and was free to
operate anytime during that period. This finding is supported by competent, substantial
evidence. The JCC concluded that under the totality of the circumstances, claimant was
operating the taxi cab as an independent contractor rather than an employee of Anchor
Cab. Accordingly, the JCC denied the claim for benefits.
[1] [2] It is axiomatic that the determination of one’s status as an employee or
independent contractor centers around the degree of control which the putative employer
exercises over the person, the decisive question being who has the right to direct what
shall be done, and how and when it shall be done. La Grande v. B & L Services, Inc., 432
So.2d 1364, 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In La Grande, we noted that “trip sheets” were
required by governmental authority (as in the present case) and opined that
“[g]overnmental *44 regulations do not constitute control or supervision by the putative
employer.” Id. at 1366. Furthermore, in finding claimant La Grande to be an independent
contractor, we noted a number of other factors identical to the present case: La Grande
leased his cab at a daily rate; the cab company maintained the cab and provided liability
insurance; La Grande was under no obligation to respond to the dispatcher’s calls. There
is, however, a fundamental distinction between La Grande and the present case. The
record of this case presents uncontroverted testimony that there were no governmental
regulations controlling the daily operations of Anchor Cab. Even the appellee has
disavowed any desire to control the operations of its drivers by stating on appeal: “With
payment of the [lease] fee, Anchor has profited and the driver is free to operate
independently.” Yet, inconsistent with its theory, Anchor Cab, in practice, exercised
control over its drivers in perhaps the most profound manner possible–regulation of the
maximum fares to be charged passengers where no governmental regulation existed to
control the fare structure. If, as it contends, Anchor Cab was only interested in collecting
the daily leasing fee, it should have had no interest in controlling the rates charged by its
drivers. La Grande does not control the instant case because that opinion contains no
mention of which party controlled the fare structure or whether the fare structure was
regulated by government. By regulating the maximum rates charged by its drivers,
Anchor Cab exercised extensive control as to “how” the cabbies shall perform their work.
We also find it extremely significant that claimant, whom appellee claims was free to
operate independently, was prohibited from working for other cab companies or accepting
radio dispatches from other cab companies while operating his leased vehicle.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
3
4
***Note there can be variations but its important to note that the legal issue is
classification of the employment status.
SAMPLE 1
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Jon M. BOWDOIN, Appellant,
v.
ANCHOR CAB, Appellee.
No. 93-754.
Sept. 22, 1994.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
•
•
•
•
Jon M. Bowdoin is suing Anchor Cab for not providing him with workers’
compensation
The JCC said that Bowdoin was operating the taxi cab as an independent
contractor rather than an employee of Anchor Cab
JCC denied the claim for benefits
Jon M. Bowdoin appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
FACTS:
• Del Pino stated that there were no governmental regulations in New Port Richey
pertaining to or controlling the daily operation of taxi cabs
• Del Pino stated that he was in the business of leasing vehicles rather than
operating a cab company
• Anchor Cab has no rules governing the conduct of drivers except that they should
be neat and clean
• Drivers were not permitted to moonlight for other companies and were not
permitted to use the dispatch system of other companies to obtain fares
• Del Pino’s radio dispatcher, Arthur Lee Lewis, confirmed that drivers could
charge less but not more than the established meter rate
ISSUE(S):
• By regulating the maximum rates charged by its drivers, is Anchor Cab exercising
extensive control as to “how” the cabbies shall perform their work?
• Was Anchor Cab exercising extensive control when they prohibited Bowdoin
from working for other cab companies or accepting radio dispatches from other
cab companies while operating his leased vehicle
HOLDING:
• By regulating the maximum rates charged by its drivers, Anchor Cab exercised
extensive control as to “how” the cabbies shall perform their work
• We also find it extremely significant that claimant […] was prohibited from
working for other cab companies or accepting radio dispatches from other cab
companies while operating his leased vehicle
REASONING:
• This case was similar to the La Grande case but had a difference in the present
case
• Anchor Cab exercised control over its drivers by regulating the maximum fares to
be charging passengers where no governmental regulation existed to control it in
the first place
• Anchor Cab also prohibited Bowdoin from working for other cab companies or
accepting radio dispatches from other cab companies while operating his leased
vehicle
• This made Anchor Cab exercise extensive control over the cabbies and how they
work which means that Bowdoin is ultimately an employee of Anchor Cab rather
than independent contractor
DISSENT/CONCURRENCE:
• Both the JCC and the District Court of Appeal of Florida both agree that there are
similarities between the La Grande case and the present case
• Both the JCC and the District Court of Appeal of Florida both agree that the “trip
sheets” were required by governmental authority and opined that governmental
regulations do not constitute control or supervision by the putative employer
• The District Court of Appeal starts to differ from the JCC when they stated that
regulating the maximum rates charged by its drivers is a form of extensive control
by Anchor Cab
• The District Court of Appeal of Florida also differed from JCC by stating that it
was extremely significant that the claimant was not allowed to work for other cab
companies or accept radio dispatches by other cab companies while operating his
leased vehicle, even though the appellee claimed that Bowdoin was free to
operate independently
Describe important points made in dissenting or concurring opinions.
SAMPLE 2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
•
•
•
Taxi Cab driver, Jon M. Bowdoin is suing Anchor Cab for worker’s
compensation.
The Judge of Compensation Claims denied this because the claimant was an
independent contractor.
The Claimant appealed, and the District Court of Appeal said that he was an
employee, so a new trial was requested under the reverse and remand.
FACTS:
Jon M. Bowdoin worked with Anchor Cab for a short while, until one of the
passengers he drove assaulted him. However, he did not receive any benefits
because he was hired as an independent contractor. He appealed, and the court of
appeals found that he was not being treated as an independent contractor but
instead as an employee. He was told how to dress, what the maximum rates could
be, and was told “how” to perform his work.
ISSUE(S):
•
•
•
If Del Pino claims that they were no governmental regulations in New Port
Richey controlling the operations of cabs, why did he establish a strict dress code
and other regulations for the drivers?
If Anchor Cab claims the driver was an independent contractor, why did they
prohibit him from working with other companies?
Why did Anchor Cab regulate the maximum fares to be charged, even though
there was no governmental regulation?
HOLDING:
•
•
•
Regardless of their claim, Anchor Cab did not work with the driver as an
independent contractor because they prohibited him from working with other
companies.
Instead of treating the drivers as independent contractors, Anchor Cabs treated
them like employees by enforcing a dress code and other regulations.
When Anchor Cab regulated the maximum fares, they took away the independent
contractors freedom, and essentially treated them as an employee.
REASONING:
•
The court found that even though Anchor Cab’s philosophy was to just lease out
the cabs, in reality they exerted a lot of control over how the cabbies worked.
DISSENT/CONCURRENCE:
•
The JCC claims that because Bowdoin was leasing the vehicle and could drive it
anytime within a 24-hour period, he was an independent contractor.
•
However, the District court of Appeals clams that Anchor Cab places so many
regulations on their “independent contractors” that they were no longer
independent contractors.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
