Shah, Esq. Jul 30, Uncategorized 0 comments. The Discussion section of a legal memorandum should be structured similarly to how you would write a law school exam. Just as in a law school exam, you should assume that the reader has a basic understanding of the law so that you do not need to explain basic legal principles but that the reader does not know the precise rules of law and facts at issue in your fact pattern.
As you would in an exam, you should educate the reader about the applicable legal principles, illustrate how those principles apply to the relevant facts, and explore any counter-arguments. Begin with a short thesis sentence that briefly identifies the issue and the applicable rule and states a short answer.
You should also mention, if applicable, the procedural posture of the case and the burdens and standards of proof. Next, you should follow with a paragraph which states the rule, citing any cases or statutes upon which the rule is derived, setting out the elements and sub-elements of the rule and clarifying how they relate to one another. Although you should state the basic facts of the cases so that the reader has context for the discussion, the discussion of the cases should focus on general principles and the criteria that courts use to describe the rule, rather than on the specific facts and reasoning of the cases.
- What to Do Before You Start Writing a Memo;
- Much more than documents..
- goldwater scholarship essay requirements.
- online learning essay writing.
You should also mention any rules of interpretation pertinent to the law you are applying. You should identify any undisputed issues and explain why they are not in dispute, then state the order in which the remaining issues will be discussed. You will also want to address any counter-arguments that could be raised but why you believe they will not prevail. For each issue or sub-issue, you should conclude as to how you think a court would likely rule on your facts.
How to Write a Legal Memorandum for Dummies
Your email address will not be published. Articles Free Resources. Heading Includes the name of the person who assigned the research project, your name, the date, and the name of the client and a short description of the subject matter of the memo. The issue should be presented in the form of a question. Portland General Elec. July 2, ; Martin v. Memorial Hosp.
The PSC thus implemented its "flexible rate program" in in order to give " utilities the flexibility to compete with their largest customers' supply options. See, e. That is precisely the point: New York State decided that utilities should compete in order to retain customers.
There is nothing to suggest that New York intended for its utilities to avoid competition by entering into anticompetitive agreements with cogenerators. The flexible rate program authorizes competition, but it does not protect utilities from losses imposed by a competitive marketplace. PSC , N. Ticor , U.
It is well established that proof of mere filing of a tariff containing an anticompetitive provision does not meet the "active state supervision" criterion. Cantor , U. Defendant's Memorandum at Richards Depo. Anticompetitive effects from such agreements are presumed as a matter of law. Trial Lawyers Ass'n, U.
The cases cited by Defendant are not to the contrary, because the excluded firms in those cases did not have the ability to compete.see
Predictive Legal Writing.pdf
See Transsource Int'l, Inc. Trinity Indus. Allpax Prod.
But under New York law at the time of the agreement, and now, UR would not have needed any permit to sell power to any of the several important commercial customers located adjacent to its new steam plant. Defendant cites only one case to support its position, Schuylkill Energy Resources, Inc. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the case because, under Pennsylvania law prevailing when the complaint was filed, the plaintiff was prohibited from making retail sales and because the plaintiff there anticipated no uncommitted output available for competitive sales to retail customers.
The Court further held that the effect of a new law phasing in retail electric competition, which was enacted only shortly before oral argument, was too speculative for the plaintiff to rely upon. New York's law is quite different. It was not entered into pursuant to any clearly articulated state policy to displace competition. Washington, D. The deposition of Thomas Richards is found as Ex. This order was submitted by Defendant with its Motion for Summary Judgment.
For the convenience of the Court, it is also found as Ex. In substance, the plant would produce both steam or "thermal energy" for heating and cooling, and electricity. The two products -- electricity and useful thermal energy -- are produced from the same unit of fuel. For the convenience of the Court, Mr. Daigneau's deposition is found as Ex. G to its Rule 56 Statement. The first of these payments is a "minimum" payment to UR for undertaking conservation measures that is "guarantee[d]" to provide the full value of the projected energy savings from such measures regardless of whether the University ever actually qualifies for the payments under state regulations or implements any such measures.
H to Defendant's Rule 56 Statement. A copy is also included as Ex. These restrictions are set forth in Section 6. See also Otter Tail Power Company v. United States , U.
Legal memo thesis paragraph
In Otter Tail , a case under Section Two of the Sherman Act, the Supreme Court viewed the town of Hankinson as a competitor in the retail market for electricity, unlawfully excluded by Otter Tail, even though Hankinson had done nothing more than decide to compete and seek a commitment from a supplier. See id. Defendant argues that the MOU "does not constitute an agreement not to compete" because it is not "an enforceable contract. But the ISA is an enforceable contract except to the extent that it is illegal under the Sherman Act.
Moreover, liability under Section One of the Sherman Act is predicated, not on whether the parties' agreement is enforceable in court, but rather on whether the parties have in fact agreed to restrain trade between themselves. FTC v. Hyde , U. The Supreme Court has shown little sympathy for the "hapless but harmless" conspirator, for defendants "have little moral standing to demand proof of.
Accord FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Burget , U. Genesee Valley Medical Care, Inc.
MidCal , U. Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. Defendant argues that the "clear articulation" requirement means only that its otherwise illegal conduct must be shown to be a "foreseeable result" of some state policy. Defendant's Memorandum at 8. Nederlander Org.
Town of Hallie , U. The underlying conduct must still be authorized by the state. To the extent that Nuggett Hydro Electric, L. See Columbia Steel Casting , F. The legislature also empowered the PSC to exempt companies that generate electricity that is "incidental" to their main businesses from full keeping of accounts and books of that "incidental" electric business. The state did not limit this to situations where there is no "unutilized capacity" in the local utility.
Flexible tariffs do not specify a single price in the way conventional industrial tariffs do.
Related legal memo thesis paragraph
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved