Business low class

0 comments

Here we go Mr. Allen 

M1 Discussion (original post)

 
Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11pm
 

Original Post: “After reading the case, assume you are a lawyer,  your client, a medical doctor has been approached  by the parents of  a mentally retarded female child to medically sterilize the child. She  comes to you for advice.  What would you advise the doctor to do?
 
Consider:
1. the inherent powers of the court
2. rights of the child
3. obligations and wishes of the parents
4. other issues discussed by the court

You, as a lawyer must be objective and NOT  insert your personal beliefs in the answer.  Use the IRAC analytical format to  respond to each separate issue you find (there are more issues than listed)”

CASE Assigned to Analyze:

Maria v. Hayes.pdfPreview the document

 You may do additional internet research,   the search terms “Pillow Angel”  and ” Washington”  will be helpful.

Response Posts: Respond to another student that gives advice different from yours. List why you think yours is correct or list how you might modify your response based on their post.

Respond to the posts of at least 2 other students. 

It is preferred if you prepare your response in Word and upload the file.  Use spell and grammar check and have Word  check the document for readability before uploading (be advised that Word will not indicate an error if you use a word that is an anagram (“trail” instead of “trial”) or a  homophone  see,  uk/gswithenbank/homophon.htm#T”>http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/homophon.htm#T).  Please include the readability score  with your submission.

To insure that the settings in Word  will give you the readability statistics:

Go to “Word Options”–“Proofing”–“when correcting spelling and grammar in Word” (make sure all boxes are checked, especially “show readability statistics”) writing style should be “grammar and style”– finally in  “settings” check all boxes.

Click here for help on completing a Discussion Board post
See Calendar above for original post and response post due dates. Be sure that this course is selected in the side menu.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

This will be the rubric used to evaluate your case submissions with the one exception that is noted in the Module 5.

 

IRAC Grading Rubric

 

 

 

IRAC/Case Analysis Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

 

Issue

view longer description

Clearly identifies the relevant issue of the case

5 pts

Identifies the issue but is not a clear and concise statement

4 pts

Can see an issue but does not properly address it

3 pts

Having difficulty concentrating on the issue.

2 pts

Does not understand the issue

1 pts

No Marks

0 pts

 pts 

 

Delete Criterion Link

 

Rule

view longer description

Concisely states the rule

5 pts

Mostly states the rule

4 pts

Partially states the rule

3 pts

Vaguely states the rule

2 pts

Does not state the correct rule

1 pts

No Marks

0 pts

 pts 

 

Delete Criterion Link

 

Analysis

view longer description

Clearly shows an understanding how the law applies to the facts.

5 pts

States how the facts and the law relate

4 pts

Does not clearly state how the facts and law relate

3 pts

Does not connect the facts or the law

2 pts

Unable to apply the law to the facts

1 pts

No Marks

0 pts

 pts 

 

Delete Criterion Link

 

Conclusion

view longer description

Clearly and Concisely states the conclusion

5 pts

States a good conclusion

4 pts

States a conclusion that is not concise but still on point

3 pts

States a conclusion

2 pts

Does not state a conclusion

1 pts

No Marks

0 pts

 pts 

 

Delete Criterion Link

 

What you learned

view longer description

Clearly states what the case taught you

5 pts

States what the case is about (paraphrases case)

4 pts

States the case verbatim or interjected personal feelings into the response

3 pts

States ideas not connected to the case

2 pts

 

Did not understand the case.

1 pts

No Marks

0 pts

 pts 

 

Delete Criterion Link

 

Content and Quality Connections

view longer description

Response is thoughtful, contains substantive insight and analysis in relation to topic. makes strong connections to readings, lecture, experience, workplace

5 pts

Response(s) demonstrate significant understanding. Robust insight and analysis. Evidence of connections.

4 pts

Content response is accurate but superficial. Some responses may be off topic. Acknowledges connections exist.

3 pts

Lacks depth; responses too general, conclusory, simplistic in nature. Some aspects of response are off topic. Posts lack connections.

2 pts

Interjected emotional responses, personal feelings, and /or beliefs in analysis

1 pts

No Marks

0 pts

 pts 

 

Delete Criterion Link

 

Total Points: 30

About the Author

Follow me


{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}