Question

Write a Case Brief on one of the following cases in a similar format to the example case brief below. (Please write in format where I can copy and paste)

• Case 22.1 Contemporary Cars, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
• Case 22.2 Staffing Network Holdings, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board.
• Case 22.3 Unite Here! Local 5 v. National Labor Relations Board.

EXAMPLE CASE BRIEF:

Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684, 604 P.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1979)

Parties:

Eddie Rael, Plaintiff‐Appellee

Emilio Cadena and Manuel Cadena,

Defendants‐Appellants

Prior Proceedings:

Eddie Rael sued Emilio and Manuel Cadena for civil battery. The trial court, sitting without a jury (bench trial), found Emilio jointly liable with Manuel for the battery. Emilio appealed the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

While visiting Emilio Cadena’s home, Eddie Rael was beaten by Emilio’s nephew, Manuel Cadena. After the attack began, Emilio yelled to Manuel “kill him!” and “hit him more!” Emilio never actually struck Rael nor physically participated in the battery. Rael was hospitalized as a result of the beating.

Issue

Under New Mexico tort law, does liability for battery arise when an individual, present during the battery, encourages the perpetrator of the battery by yelling “kill him” and “hit him more” thus inciting the perpetration of the battery though he takes no actual part in the physical beating?

Rule

Yes. An individual may be liable for battery by encouraging or inciting the perpetrator by words or acts.

Analysis/Reasoning

The rule of law in the United States is: Civil liability for assault and battery is not limited to the direct perpetrator, but extends to any person who, by any means, aids or encourages the act. The act of verbal encouragement at the scene may give rise to liability because the perpetrator is goaded and encouraged at the behest of the person encouraging the battery. Here, Emilio encouraged Manuel to beat Rael and to continue to beat him. The battery may not have occurred or continued but for Emilio’s encouragement. Therefore, Emilio had some part in the beating even though he never physically contacted Rael. Thus, Emilio is liable for the battery for aiding in its commission and encouraging the act.

Conclusion (holding/disposition)

The judgment against Emilio Cadena is affirmed.

Answer 1

Contemporary vehicles. Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

Inteveing-Respondent

Nos. 14-3723, 15-1187

Chosen: February 26, 2016

Gatherings:

Steven M. Bernstein, Attorney, Fisher's and Philip's LLP, Tampa, FL, For solicitors/cross respondents.

Rafael Aybar, National Labor Relations Board office of general committee, sitting without a jury, discovered Emiliu Jointly subject with manual for the battery. Emiliu bid the judgment of the path court.

The businesses have requested of for judiciai audit.

1. Accurate and procedural foundation. Solicitor contemporary vehicles which we call the Dealership works together of Orlando and sells and administrations vehicles in Florida.

Legitimate structure and standard of audit:

The national Labor Relations act ensures workers option to arrange an association and to connect with deliberate Activities with the end goal of aggregate bartering or assurance.

The regulatory law judge found, and the Board asserted, that the vendor and auto country in various occasions acted unlawfully to baffle their representatives secured rights to participate in purposeful action and to compose an association.

Taking everything into account, g note the alleviation requested by the board gives that the four experts talked about here alongside the unlawfully released Anthony Roberts are to get back compensation and lost advantages, less any Interim procuring.

Please give upvote