{"id":249,"date":"2015-06-05T13:32:57","date_gmt":"2015-06-05T13:32:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=249"},"modified":"2021-07-08T16:57:16","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T16:57:16","slug":"1-4-smith-v-jones","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/intro\/1-4-smith-v-jones\/","title":{"rendered":"Case Example Smith v Jones"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"style66\"><strong>Lawsuits <\/strong>are the front lines of communications law under a common law system, so it&#8217;s important to understand the way a case is treated within the legal system.<\/p>\n<p class=\"style66\"><strong>The way a civil law case works\u00a0 <\/strong>can be described in this hypothetical case of Smith v Jones. \u00a0In our hypothetical case, we&#8217;ll say that Samantha Smith is a state legislator and a well-known public figure in Virginia.\u00a0\u00a0Jesse Jones is a web publisher in the Tidewater region. \u00a0Smith says Jones hurt her reputation when she published untrue allegations about her supposed illegal and immoral conduct.\u00a0 She visits with her lawyer, they draw up a complaint and present it to the court in order to start the process of a lawsuit.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Complaint (initial brief<\/strong> ) &#8212; Plaintiff S. Smith (with the help of her attorney) writes an initial \u00a0brief that lays out the facts, points out the law and precedents, and argues for a million dollar judgement against J. Jones.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">This <strong>brief<\/strong>\u00a0 is presented to a local circuit court as &#8220;Smith v Jones.&#8221;\u00a0 \u00a0(The stand-alone <em><strong>v<\/strong><\/em> &#8212; without punctuation &#8212; is used in preference to vs or versus).<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">The brief has five or six sections:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Who is suing whom<\/strong> &#8211; parties to the complaint.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Venue<\/strong> \u00a0&#8211; where the suit is filed and also that it\u00a0 is being filed in the proper court and location, or venue;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Facts of the case <\/strong>such as the occupations and addresses of the plaintiff and respondent, \u00a0the publication of a news article by Ms Jones (the defendant \/ respondent) and the damages allegedly suffered by Ms Smith (the complainant \/ plaintiff).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Legal arguments,<\/strong> including tests for libel (such as the <em>NY Times v Sullivan<\/em> standard), along with the precedents on which the case stands;<\/li>\n<li><strong>Action requested, <\/strong>also called Prayer for Relief, which is a civil case is either an award of money or an injunction against a defendant or both. In appeals cases the relief requested may be to reverse the lower court verdict or to overturn a law as unconstitutional.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>The case is accepted<\/strong> by the\u00a0local circuit court, and at the same time, Jones is notified (&#8220;served&#8221; with a notice) about the lawsuit. \u00a0 Now Jones can take a variety of actions.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>An Answer<\/strong> or response, is drawn up by respondent (defendant) Jones.\u00a0 The answer may include preliminary motions, for example, \u00a0a<strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Summary_judgement\">motion for summary judgement<\/a><\/strong> on the basis of insufficient evidence, or possibly on an inaccurate reading of the law (called a <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Demurrer\">demurrer<\/a><\/strong>). Other preliminary motions may include motions to suppress evidence illegally obtained, motions to change the venue (especially in the case where there has been unusual publicity) and motions to reschedule a trial to allow more time to prepare.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Discovery<\/strong> of evidence, including witness depositions; There may also be interrogatories, or questions, presented to witnesses of both sides, again, before the trial starts. At this point, the court and both sides should\u00a0know where they stand before an expensive trial begins.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Out of Court Settlements <\/strong>are reached in\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/08\/08\/business\/08law.html?_r=0\">80-92%<\/a> of lawsuits at this stage, since going into a full blown trial is expensive.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Trial ordered<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 If a trial is requested and ordered, a date is set and all evidence is certified by the court. \u00a0Sometimes groups that are not named in the complaint but who have a stake in the trial may file a \u201cfriend of the court\u201d (amicus) brief.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Voir dire,<\/strong> or jury selection, involves an initial pool of jurors selected from voter registration lists. Each side hopes to include favorably-leaning jurors and exclude those who might not be predisposed towards their client.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Trial<\/strong> \u2013 \u00a0Begins with opening statements, calls for witnesses from plaintiff (prosecution), witnesses for respondent (defense), closing statements and instructions to the jury.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Evidence is weighed<\/strong> by judge or jury using appropriate tests (or standards) to the evidence. \u00a0At the trial court level, the outcome is a jury <strong>verdict.\u00a0<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"style66\">In a criminal case, the well-known test is <strong><em>guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">In a civil case, the test is the<strong><em> preponderance of evidence.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">However, in a Constitutional law case involving the First Amendment, such as a libel case,\u00a0claims by plaintiffs are judged under either a \u00a0<strong><em>strict scrutiny standard <\/em><\/strong><em>(for content-specific issues) or an<\/em><strong><em> intermediate scrutiny standard <\/em><\/strong><em>(for content neutral issues). \u00a0Other tests,\u00a0 such as the <strong>Ollman test<\/strong> for fact \/ opinion in libel trials, or the<strong> Central Hudson test<\/strong> for advertising regulation, are applied in other kinds of cases.<br \/>\n<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Smith wins and Jones appeals<\/strong>. Now the case is now called <em>Jones v Smith<br \/>\n<\/em><\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Appeal<\/strong> \u2014 Either side can appeal a trial court decision to a higher court for a variety of legal reasons. There is a chain of appeals courts in both state and federal systems. A case heard by a state supreme court can be appealed to the US Supreme Court (as in New York Times v Sullivan).\n<ul>\n<li class=\"style66\">At the federal appeals court level, usually only one judge presides, but on important cases they may preside \u201c<strong>en banc<\/strong>\u201d or with most or all judges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">The appeals court reads the briefs, hears the oral arguments, and then issues an <strong>opinion. <\/strong>In our hypothetical case,\u00a0 Jones wins and the appeals court decides to <em>remand<\/em> the case with instructions to lower court judge.\n<ul>\n<li class=\"style66\">The decision could stand as a weak federal district precedent if the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t grant <strong><em>certiorari.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong> &#8212; Smith appeals to Supreme Court, which grants <em>certiorari.<\/em> Case is now <strong><em>Smith v Jones <\/em><\/strong>again<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">Supreme court decides case on basis of a majority of the nine justices, and the majority picks someone to write the opinion. The minority may also write<em> dissent.<\/em><\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Opinion<\/strong> \u2014 A court opinion may<strong> uphold<\/strong>\u00a0the opinion of a lower court, or <strong>reverse <\/strong>a decision of a lower court. When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, the majority will issue the opinion, there may also be <strong>concurring<\/strong> opinions with different takes on the law, or <strong>dissenting<\/strong> opinions from different court members.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\"><strong>Reverse &amp; remand<\/strong> &#8212; A reversal of a decision often means that the case is <strong>remanded<\/strong> to a lower court to re-hear the case and reach\u00a0a new decision based on the upper court\u2019s instructions as expressed in the opinion.<\/li>\n<li class=\"style66\">\u00a0The lower court re-hears arguments again and now makes a decision based on Supreme Court guidelines. \u00a0If Smith wins this case, a fine and court costs may be imposed on Jones.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"style66\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lawsuits are the front lines of communications law under a common law system, so it&#8217;s important to understand the way a case is treated within the legal system. The way a civil law case works\u00a0 can be described in this &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/intro\/1-4-smith-v-jones\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":17,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-249","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/249\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4433,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/249\/revisions\/4433"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}