Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

For this project I would like a sheet that contains 750 words and make a power point with which I can present a maximum of 5 slides

1 answer below »
Assignment 3
Assignment #3 (Due Date as Assigned)
Case Brief/In-Class Presentation
(Approximately 750 Words/3 pages double-spaced and Five Minute In-Class Presentation)
During the semester, each student will be assigned one important land-use planning case.
The assignment of each case will coincide with our discussion of the planning topic from the
syllabus. For example, a “general plan” case will be assigned for the general plan section. The
goal is for one at least one student to present one case each week.
The student will be expected to read the entire case and then prepare a concise written
summary of the case using the IRAC method. “IRAC” stands for Issue, Rule, Application, and
Conclusion. This method of analysis is commonly used in law schools and is a helpful way to
organize a case. I have attached a summary of the IRAC method provided by Cal-State
Northridge. I would expect each student’s “IRAC” analysis to be at least approximately 500
words or two written pages but it could be longer.
Based upon the student’s written summary or “
ief” of the case, the student will present
the case in class. This oral presentation will be approximately five minutes. The written
summary will be due the same class period as the oral presentation.
The student’s grade will be based roughly equally on the paper and the in-class

How to Brief a Case Using the "IRAC" Method
iefing a case, your goal is to reduce the information from the case into a format
that will provide you with a helpful reference in class and for review. Most importantly,
y "
iefing" a case, you will grasp the problem the court faced (the issue); the relevant
law the court used to solve it (the rule); how the court applied the rule to the facts (the
application or "analysis"); and the outcome (the conclusion). You will then be ready to
not only discuss the case, but to compare and contrast it to other cases involving a simila
Before attempting to "
ief' a case, read the case at least once
Follow the "IRAC" method in
iefing cases:
ite a
ief summary of the facts as the court found them to be. Eliminate facts that are
not relevant to the court's analysis. For example, a business's street address is probably
not relevant to the court's decision of the issue of whether the business that sold a
defective product is liable for the resulting injuries to the plaintiff. However, suppose a
customer who was assaulted as she left its store is suing the business. The custome
claims that her injuries were the reasonably foreseeable result of the business's failure to
provide security patrols. If the business is located in an upscale neighborhood, then
perhaps it could argue that its failure to provide security patrols is reasonable. If the
usiness is located in a crime-ridden area, then perhaps the customer is right. Instead of
including the street address in the case
ief, you may want to simply describe the type of
neighborhood in which it is located. (Note: the time of day would be another relevant
factor in this case, among others).
Procedural History*
What court authored the opinion: The United States Supreme Court? The California
Court of Appeal? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? (Hint: Check under the title of the
case: The Court and year of the decision will be given). If a trial court issued the
decision, is it based on a trial, or motion for summary judgment, etc.? If an appellate
court issued the decision, how did the lower courts decide the case?
What is the question presented to the court? Usually, only one issue will be discussed, but
sometimes there will be more. What are the parties fighting about, and what are they
asking the court to decide? For example, in the case of the assaulted customer, the issue
for a trial court to decide might be whether the business had a duty to the customer to
provide security patrols. The answer to the question will help to ultimately determine
This applies to case
ieß only, and not exams. Use the IRAC method in answering
exams: Issue/Rule/Analysis/Conclusion,
whether the business is liable for negligently failing to provide security patrols: whethe
the defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care, and what that duty of care is, are key issues in
negligence claims.
Determine what the relevant rules of law are that the court uses to make its decision.
These rules will be identified and discussed by the court. For example, in the case of the
assaulted customer, the relevant rule of law is that a properfy owner's duty to prevent
harm to invitees is determined by balancing the foreseeability of the harm against the
urden of preventive measures. There may be more than one relevant rule of law to a
case: for example, in a negligence case in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff
assumed the risk of harm, the relevant rules of law could be the elements of negligence,
and the definition of "assumption of risk" as a defense. Don't just simply list the cause of
action, such as "negligence" as a rule of law: What rule must the court apply to the facts
to determine the outcome?
Applicatio n/A na lys is :
This may be the most important portion of the
ief. The court will have examined the
facts in light of the rule, and probably considered all "sides" and arguments presented to
it. How courts apply the rule to the facts and analyze the case must be understood in orde
to properly predict outcomes in future cases involving the same issue. What does the
court consider to be a relevant fact given the rule of law? How does the court interpret the
ule: for example, does the court consider monetary costs of providing security patrols in
weighing the burden of preventive measures? Does the court imply that if a business is in
a dangerous area, then it should be willing to bear a higher cost for security? Resist the
temptation to merely repeat what the court said in analyzing the facts: what does it mean
to you? Summarize the court's rationale in your own words. If you encounter a word that
you do not know, use a dictionary to find its meaning.
What was the final outcome of the case? In one or two sentences, state the courl's
ultimate finding. For example, the business did not owe the assaulted customer a duty to
provide security patrols.
Note: "Case
iefing" is a skill that you will develop throughout the semester, Practice
will help you develop this skill. Periodically, case
ieß will be collected for purposes of
feedback. At any time, you may submit your case
ief(s) for feedback.

1 The 2013 HUD article further explains that inclusionary zoning or housing programs “vary in their structure; they can
e mandatory or voluntary and have different set-aside requirements, affordability levels, and control periods. Most
[inclusionary zoning] programs offer developers incentives such as density bonuses, expedited approval, and fee waivers
to offset some of the costs associated with providing the affordable units. Many programs also include developer opt-outs
or alternatives, such as requiring developers to pay fees or donate land in lieu of building affordable units or providing
the units offsite. Studies show that mandatory programs produce more affordable housing than voluntary programs, and
developer opt-outs can reduce opportunities for creating mixed-income housing. At the same time, [inclusionary zoning's]
eliance on the private sector means that its effectiveness also depends on the strength of a locality's housing market, and
esearchers acknowledge that a certain degree of flexibility is essential to ensuring the success of [inclusionary zoning]
programs.” (2013 HUD Inclusionary Zoning, supra, at p. 1, fns. omitted.)
2 For example, Government Code section XXXXXXXXXX, subdivision (f)(1), a provision of the Housing Accountability Act,
provides in this regard, in part: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring
the development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies
appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section
65584.” Similarly, although the legislative history of the density bonus law, Government Code section 65915, discloses
a disagreement among supporters of the law with regard to how that statute would apply to developers subject to a local
mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance, that history makes clear that there was agreement that the density bonus
law “does not preempt the ability [of] local ordinances to require the inclusion of affordable (low, very low, or moderate-
income) units within a housing development.” (Sen. Hollingsworth, letter to Sen. Pereira (Aug. 25, 2005) –––– Sen. J.
(2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) pp. 2293–2294 [legislative intent of Sen. Bill No XXXXXXXXXX–2006 Reg. Sess.) and Sen. Bill No.
XXXXXXXXXX–2004 Reg. Sess.) ], reprinted at Historical and Statutory Notes, 36D West's Ann. Gov.Code (2009 ed.) foll. §
65915, pp. 233–234; see Assemblymember Mullin, letter (Sept. 8, XXXXXXXXXXAssem. J. (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) pp. 3670–
3671 [same], reprinted at Historical and Statutory Notes, 36D West's Ann. Gov.Code, supra, at p. 234.)
3 California statutes generally define the various low and moderate income levels by reference to the levels set by federal
law, but in the absence of applicable federal standards, extremely low income households are defined as those earning
no more than 30 percent of the area median income (adjusted for family size) (Health & Saf.Code, § 50106); very low
income households are defined as those earning no more than 50 percent of the area median income (id., § 50105); lowe
income households are defined as those earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income (id., § XXXXXXXXXX); and
moderate income households are defined as those earning less than 120 percent of area median income. (Id., § 50093.)
4 The statute also requires that when new (or substantially rehabilitated) dwelling units are developed in a redevelopment
project by the redevelopment agency itself, at least 30 percent of the units must be affordable to low or moderate income
families. (Health & Saf.Code, § 33413, subd. (b)(1).)
5 Hereafter, we shall cite sections of the ordinance using the following format, e.g., S.J.M.C. § XXXXXXXXXXThe ordinance is
available online at < https:
ary/ca/san_jose/codes/code_of_ordinances> [as of June 15, 2015].
6 In addition to requiring 15 percent of for-sale units to be made available at an affordable housing cost, with respect to rental
esidential development the ordinance requires 9 percent of the units to be made available for rent at an affordable housing
cost to moderate income households, and 6 percent of the units to be made available at an affordable housing cost to
very low income households. (S.J.M.C. § XXXXXXXXXXA.2.) The provision relating to rental units, however, explicitly provides
that it “shall be operative [only] at such time as cu
ent appellate case law in Palme
Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of
Los Angeles, 175 Cal.App.4th 1396, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 875 (2d Dist.2009) is overturned, disapproved, or depublished by a
court of competent jurisdiction or modified by the state legislature to authorize control of rents of inclusionary units.” (Ibid.)
In the 2009 decision in Palme
Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th XXXXXXXXXX–
1411, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 875 (Palme
Sixth Street Properties ), the Court of Appeal held that the vacancy decontrol provisions
of the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ.Code, § XXXXXXXXXX, subd. (a))—that permit residential landlords, except in
specified circumstances, to establish the initial rental rate for a dwelling or unit—precluded the City of Los Angeles from
enforcing a provision of its mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance that required the developer of a residential rental
development to rent some of the rental units at a specified below market, affordable rental rate. The provision of the San
Jose ordinance in question recognizes that unless Palme
Sixth Street Properties is judicially overturned or legislatively
modified, the provisions of the San Jose ordinance applicable to rental units, limiting the initial rent that a developer can
charge for a newly constructed residential rental unit, cannot be enforced.
Although, in light of Palme
Sixth Street Properties, the provisions of the ordinance are not operative as to new rental
units, when a residential development includes both for-sale and rental units, the ordinance provides that its provisions
applicable to for-sale units shall apply to the portion of the development that consists of for-sale units. (S.J.M.C. §
7 The density bonus provisions of Government Code section 65915 are very detailed, specifying a variable bonus
depending upon the household income category to be served (very low income, low income, moderate income) and the
percentage of units the developer agrees to include in its proposed project. (Gov.Code, § 65915, subd. (f).)
8 Health and Safety Code section 33413, subdivision (c)(1) provides that affordable units shall remain available at affordable
cost for not less than 45 years for home ownership units. Health and Safety Code section 33413, subdivision (c)(2)
allows the sale of such units prior to
Answered 1 days After Apr 04, 2024


Shubham answered on Apr 06 2024
6 Votes
In the case of California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, the City of San Jose implemented an affordable housing ordinance that requires developers to include affordable housing units in new residential developments or pay fee for construction of units. The California Building Industry Association has challenged ordinance and this includes contending that it is constituted an unconstitutional exaction on developers (Jacob, 2016). The ordinance aims to address pressing issue of affordable housing in region by mandating certain percentage of affordable units in new developments. This ensures socio-economic diversity in housing stock of city. CBIA argued that ordinance has imposed undue burden on developers and infringed upon property rights without proper justification.
Procedural History:
The dispute between California Building Industry Association and City of San Jose has undergone series of legal proceedings before reaching Supreme Court of California. The CBIA has filed lawsuit against City of San Jose for challenging constitutionality of affordable housing ordinance. The trial court has provided decision in the favour of City. This includes upholding ordinance as valid exercise of regulatory authority. The CBIA appealed decision to California Court of Appeal that has affirmed ruling of trial court. The CBIA was dissatisfied with decision of the court and this requires reviewing the Supreme Court of California. This has granted certiorari to address important constitutional issues raised by case. The case was presented before Supreme Court of California for final adjudication and...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here