bcor 2301 out of class assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Boulder *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2301
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by ChefStrawGoldfish22
Godfrey v. Branstand 2014
Jess Gomez - BCOR 2301 Out of Class Assignment
I viewed the Godfrey v. Branstand et al case, which centered around Godfrey, the plaintiff, alleging that the defendants, “deprived him of due process and equal protection under
the law guaranteed by the US Constitution.” This was a civil rights case held in the Iowa Supreme Court. The plaintiff in this case was the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the State of Iowa and the defendant was the Governor of Iowa and his staff. The judge in this trial was Chief Judge James E. Gritzner. One issue that was a reoccurrence throughout the trial was how plaintiff and defendant were attempting to use earlier cases to act as a precedent and to support their respective sides.
I thought this was interesting after going back to our class discussion on stare decisis and the idea that judges are obligated to follow the precedent from a prior case. This point in the case made me debate if judges already have established the precedent before the trial starts, or if it is established after hearing both sides. To move on, the plaintiff comments, “pendency in state court is never a bar to proceedings around the same matter in federal court having jurisdiction.” This led me to connect back to our class discussion on the requirements for a court to hear a case which include jurisdiction, or the authority that a court must hear and decide on a specific case. After examining this issue, I was able to understand how the state and federal court systems vary and
can have separate outcomes on different cases. I also noticed that there was a jury and connected this to our class discussion on jury selection. In federal courts, a party must request to have a jury and the amount of controversy must exceed $20. Because the jury is used to determine what the true facts in a case are, it is essential if you are able to compel them to take
your side.
The defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss because they held that the plaintiff,
“did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the portion of salary that could be changed at the Governor’s discretion.” The defendant had filed the motion to dismiss on March 26, two months after the initial complaint was made which demonstrates how the trial
process goes. It also relates to how defendants have to “answer” the plaintiff’s complaint. I connected this motion to the idea of ripeness in a case because the defendants are saying that the complaint lacked legal sufficiency. This was similar to ripeness because both center around the idea that there has to be substantial controversy in order to have a trial. After watching this case, I felt there were many things that differed from my initial idea of what went on during a trial. I initially thought that all cases took more of a “back-and-forth” approach where both sides are constantly countering each other’s claims, but in this case, you can see that both sides get the opportunity to fully present their stories and get to answer questions from the judge. It was more structured than I originally had thought, which allowed me to have a better understanding of the issues at hand. This also allowed for both sides to also
rebut the opposition’s arguments fully.
My main takeaway from this assignment and watching this case was how important your wording is because it can determine how the judge and jury interpret your side of the case. Both sides had to be very selective with the way they presented information to support their claims and try to disprove the opposing arguments. It is evident that the way you present information is critical to success in court. Throughout the trial I recognized many terms we had learned in class, such as unjust enrichment, quasi contract, and right to damages. Understanding these key terms allowed me to follow along closely and identify what both sides wanted out of the trial. This learning experience gave me a better understanding of how law works in a business
setting. Because I owned my own business, I had a brief understanding of some concepts prior to this but gaining more knowledge on legal aspects has shown me that there are many small details that businesses need to pay attention to so they can avoid being involved in a lawsuit. This would include using precise language and terminology related to the business and legal aspects being dealt with.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help