Directions Read Chapter 3 prior to completing this assignment. Many case studies
ID: 459980 • Letter: D
Question
Directions
Read Chapter 3 prior to completing this assignment. Many case studies are included in your textbook. This exercise will help you to learn vocabulary and how to analyze the case studies.
Brief 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island on p. 80-82. Use pages 22-23 for reference. In your brief, you should include the following information:
the Parties (Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?)
the History of the case (Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision?)
the Facts (What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue?)
the Plaintiff's Theory (Why he thinks he is right)
the Defendant's Theory (Why she thinks she is right)
the Legal Issue (a yes or no question)
the Holding of the Court (Yes or no--answers the legal issue).
The Reasoning of the Court (i.e.: what facts and laws did the court rely on to decide the case; why the case was decided in the winner's favor; why did the other side lose)
What do you think? Was this case decided correctly? Why or why not?
Course: Business Law 1 (MG260DLBU1A2016 Business Law I): Book: Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment 16th edition
PLEASE ANSWER ON A JUNIOR COLLEGE LEVEL AND PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES
Explanation / Answer
Parties: Plaintiff is 44 Liquormart Inc. Defendant is The State of Rhode Island. The appellant is The State of Rhode Island and the appellee is 44 Liquormart Inc.
History of the case: In this case, Rhode Island had banned advertisement of retail liquor prices in such places where liquor was not sold. At the trial court level (District court) the plaintiff i.e. 44 Liquormart Inc. won as the district court found the ban unconstitutional. At the lower appellate level (The Court of Appeals ) the appellant i.e. The State of Rhode Island won the case as it reversed the decision of the district court. The court went to Supreme Court which ruled in favor of 44 Liquormart Inc.
Facts: Plaintiff sued the State of Rhode Island as the state banned advertisement of retail liquor prices in such places where liquor was not sold. The state allowed advertisements only through tags and signs inside a liquor store. Now, plaintiff opposed to this ban, leading them to sue the State of Rhode Island.
Plaintiff's theory: As per 44 Liquormart Inc., the ban resulted in violation and infringement on the First Amendment right to commercial freedom of speech.
Defendant's theory: As per the State of Rhode Island such a ban would promote temperance and reduce consumption of alcohol.
Legal issue: The legal issue here is that whether the ban imposed by the State of Rhode Island resulted in violation and infringement on the First Amendment right to commercial freedom of speech. The answer would be a yes or a no.
Holding of the court: The Supreme Court answered in 'yes' i.e. it held that the ban imposed by the State of Rhode Island actually resulted in violation and infringement on the First Amendment right to commercial freedom of speech.
Reasoning of the court: The Supreme Court reasoned that the information being disseminated by 44 Liquormart Inc. was truthful and in no way was a misleading commercial message. Thus state should allow 44 Liquormart Inc. to continue emanating such information. The state should control those messages that are misleading and deceptive. The court also reasoned that commercial speech was entitled to protection under the First Amendment. This led the case to be decided in 44 Liquormart Inc.'s favor.
I think that the reasoning provided by Supreme Court is apt and the case was decided correctly. The reason why i believe this is because 44 Liquormart Inc.'s advertisement did not mention prices of alcoholic beverages but stated low prices of peanuts, potato chips etc. It never meant to imply that it had low liquor prices.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.