Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Kolami v Luska Business Law Case
Your score on this assignment will be based on the following:
The depth of understanding you display
Citation to reliable authority to support your comments – NOTE: Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source due to the fact that it can be changed by almost anyone with a computer. Cites to Wikipedia will not count toward the required citation to authority in Biz Law Talk!
The accuracy of you cites
Your writing skills
The quality of your interaction with other students in the discussion
Submitting your posts on three different days
Here is an example of a good post:
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. The Supreme Court at that time determined that a woman had a right to choose. One of the “underpinning” issues of Roe is a right to privacy. The right to privacy is addressed in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed Roe v Wade 38 times (1). In 1992, Casey v Planned Parenthood,14 F.3d 848, the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the core of Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy. In this case, the Supreme Court stated, “the ability of women to participate equally in economics and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives and that this ability to control their reproductive lives was enough of a reliance to sustain Roe.” (2). This conclusion by the court specifically affirmed the doctrine stare decisis as it applies to Roe v Wade. (3) In my opinion the original ruling in 1973, 38 reaffirmations, the 1992 affirmation of Roe v. Wade doctrine of Stare Decisis, the rights to privacy as indicated above, along with the fact that this law has become a law that has come “to be relied on”(4), makes it obvious that this is “settled law”. However, Judge Alito’s refusal to commit to one side or the other, has enabled him to avoid hanging himself with either the pro-life or the pro-choice side. In my opinion, Judge Alito is not correct in his refusal to acknowledge Roe v Wade as settled law. |
REMEMBER: It is not enough to just state your opinion on the topics discussed in Biz Law Talk. Instead, your opinion must be supported by citation to reliable authority. Examples of reliable authority include your textbook and sites such as www.findlaw.com. Failure to cite authority will adversely affect your grade for Biz Law Talk.
Here is a site that you may find helpful in drafting well-reasoned comments: http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html
Topic:
What is a “non-compete covenant” and when are they enforceable?
Kolami v Luska Business Law Case
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Kolami v Luska Business Law Case |
Kolami v Luska Business Law Case