Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Legal Brief : Gibson v. Mayor :. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page paper that includes the case name and number, a brief synopsis of the facts of the case, the charges made by Gibson against the mayor and council, the investigation, and what the courts ruled. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: MM12_PGlggbs.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
BARRY, BECKER, and GREENBERG, circuit judges (Villanova University School of Law, 2004). The plaintiff was Charles Gibson, the defendants were the MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON, a
municipal corporation (Villanova University School of Law, 2004). The plaintiff sued the Mayor and Council for wrongful discharge pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004; Villanova University
School of Law, 2004). Charles Gibson was a ten-year veteran with the Wilmington, Delaware Police Department (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). Gibson was discharged for making dishonest statements
to his supervisors (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). Gibson claimed the Honesty Directive regulation at the department was vague and overbroad (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). Furthermore, he charged the directive interfered
with his First Amendment right of free speech (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). The text of the Honesty Directive reads: "Members and employees are required to be truthful and forthright at
all times. Violation of this regulation will result in disciplinary action as specified for a class A violation, with the only applicable penalty being dismissal" (Villanova University School of Law,
2004; HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). The District Court ruled in favor of the defendants (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). It was a summary judgment (HR Complys Newsletter, 2004). There is more
to the case, however. In writing the judgment Judge Becker reported that Gibson wanted the summary judgment set aside because the District Court did not inform him that this action
was being considered and thus, it prevented him form choosing his preferred trial venue (Villanova University School of Law, 2004). Gibson said he was not allowed to enter into
evidence any documents and that the court had overstepped its authority by allowing the jury to listen to certain tape recordings of his conversations with his brother and with his
...