Question

Find an example of a case. Explain the purpose of the appeal. Provide the rationale the court utilized to reach an outcome and what was the outcome.

Answer 1

Answer is as follows

An example of a case that is briefed version of the sample court case that waspesented in Exhibit 1A on page 32 .

BERGERE v. CITY OF SEATTLE

united states court of appeals

Ninth circuit,2008.

512F3d 582

FACTS The Seattle Center is an entertainment "zone" in downtown Seattle,Washington,that attracts nearly ten million tourists each year.The center encompasses thaters,arenas,museums,exhibition halls,conference rooms, outdoor stadiums and retaurants and features street performers.Under the authority of the city ,the center 's director issued rules in2002 to address safety concerns and other matters .Amoung other things ,street performers complaints were required to obtain permits and were badges.After members of the public field numerous complaints of threatening behavour by street performer and balloon artist Michael Berger.Seattle Center staff cited berger for several rules violations.He filed a suit a federal district court against the city and others,alleging,in part,that the rules violated his free speech rights under the Fiirst Amendment to U.S.Constitution.The court issued a judgement in the plaintiff's favour .The city appealed to he U.S. court of appeals for the Ninth circuit.

ISSUE Did the rules issued by the Seattle under the city's authority meet the requirements for valid restrictions on speech under the First AMendment?

DECISION yes,The U.S court appeals for the the Ninth circuit reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings."Such content neutral and narrowly tailored rules must be upheld

REASON The court concluded first that the rules requiring permits and badges were “content neutral.” Time, place, and manner restrictions do not violate the First Amendment if they burden all expression equally and do not allow officials to treat different messages differently. In this case, the rules met this test and thus did not discriminate based on content. The court also concluded that the rules were “narrowly tailored” to “promote a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively” otherwise. With the rules, the city was trying to “reduce territorial disputes among performers, deter patron harassment, and facilitate the identification and apprehension of offending performers.” This was pursuant to the valid governmental objective of protecting the safety and convenience of the other performers and the public generally. The public’s complaints about Berger and others showed that unregulated street performances posed a threat to these interests. The court was “satisfied that the city’s permit scheme was designed to further valid governmental objectives.”

{HERE was the example of a case in a brief sample.As in this case the ISSUE is the appeal that was done before the court to answer.The city appealed to he U.S. court of appeals for the Ninth circuit..Actually here they want the court to give a reasonable answer to their questions.

Then in the titileREASON the court gave a rationale answer that "the court was satisfied that city 's permit scheme was designed to further valid governmental objectives."They declared the rules requiring permits are neutral.So this the outcome that the court concluded at last.}