2019 YMCA TENNESSEE YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT

MODEL SUPREME COURT

LAWYER PACKET
Tri-Star Conference

Your lawyer information includes the following items:

- A brief writing guide
- A citation format page
- Information about oral argument
- A sample brief
- The YIG Model Supreme Court policies: Read this document
for a complete explanation of Court procedures.

1. Each lawyer team must complete two briefs: one for

Appellant/Petitioner and one for Appellee/Respondent. The division
of labor is left to the discretion of each lawyer team. Partners may
contribute equally to both briefs, or each partner may author a
single brief.

Lawyer teams also must be prepared to present both sides

(Appellant/Petitioner and Appellee/Respondent) during Oral
Argument, and each partner must argue one of the questions
presented in the Model Case.

2. Each lawyer team must email a clean copy of your Appellant brief
and your Appellee brief to edugger@tennesseecce.org by March
6th, 2019. Please email only PDF or Word files, and please make
the name of each file Lawyer1/Lawyer2 Appellee or
Lawyer1/Lawyer2 Appellant.

Lawyer teams should also bring a paper copy of each brief to the
conference.
YMCA MODEL TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT
BRIEF WRITING GUIDELINES
A brief is a legal document prepared by a party to the Court. It contains
information on the facts of the case, the issues to be decided, legal precedents and
rule of law related to the case, and arguments to persuade the Court to reach a
certain decision. Because all Model Court cases are heard at the appellate level, the
facts of the case are not in question. Student lawyers are cautioned against re-
trying the case or arguing the facts as outlined in the Model Case. Rather, the
application and interpretation of legal precedent and rule of law are at issue.
The goal of a brief is to convince the Court that one’s position is correct,
logical and reasonable based on the facts of the case when viewed in light of
relevant court opinions. The Court should be treated as a potential ally to be won
over by effective persuasion rather than an opponent, and the language used in a
brief must show the highest respect for the Court. The attorney team must never lie
or distort facts but should present the case in the most favorable light possible.
The brief should convince the Court that the decision requested is not only
consistent with legal precedent and the rule of law but is also the only logical and
just outcome.

- To start on your brief, read the trial record, which is the document with the
file name ending in FIRST that explains this year’s First Round Model Case.
- Next, focus on the instructions for each brief that appear towards the end of
the trial record (“For Appellant, write a brief in which you…”).
- Finally, go through the case authority – the various court opinions that are
provided – and decide which case authority supports each side in the model
case.

Be sure to look at the Sample Brief, too. It involves a completely different case from
your First Round Model Case, but it will give you a good idea of how to organize and
write a brief.

Specific Writing Guidelines

Form:
Briefs must be formatted for letter-sized paper (8 1/2 x 11).
The argument section of the brief must be double-spaced and may not exceed 5
pages.

Content:
A brief should include the following elements in the order listed:
1. Title Page
The Title Page should be in the same form as the sample brief.

1
2. Table of Contents
The Table of Contents lists each element of the brief (excluding itself and the
Title Page) and the page on which each element begins.

Because the Argument section is the most complex part of the brief, the headings
and subheadings used in the Argument section should be listed individually with
corresponding page numbers (see the Sample Brief).

3. Questions Presented
This section should present the basic issues as outlined in the Model Case.
As each case centers on two large issues, the brief will contain two questions
presented. These should be phrased so that the answer “yes” will support the
position of the brief. This page of the brief is numbered as page i and may be
single-spaced.

4. Table of Authorities
The Table of Authorities is a list of all materials used to support the argument
presented in the brief. It must be in alphabetical order and list every page in the
brief where each material is cited. The Table of Authorities is numbered as page ii
and may be single-spaced. See the information on citation format for the proper
form of each listing.
Note: A case authority must be used in your brief (and appear in the Table
of Authorities) if it is to be used in your oral argument. If you do not use a case
authority in your brief, you may not use it in your oral argument.

5. Statement of the Case

This section is a short introductory statement of the facts and legal issues
involved in the case. It is divided into two subsections on separate pages, each of
which may be single spaced and no more than 1 page in length:
A. Procedural History
This section traces the case from the trial court to the YMCA Model Supreme
Court. The Procedural History is numbered as page 1 of the brief.
B. Statement of Facts
The Statement of Facts simply summarizes the facts of the case as presented
in the Model Case. The brief must include all relevant facts but should specifically
include facts that will support the later Argument section. The Statement of Facts is
numbered as page 2 of the brief.

6. Argument
This is the core of the brief and must be well-organized, convincing, and
supported by case authority through citations. For each point addressed in the brief,
the attorney team should examine/explain the rule of law or legal precedent
involved, relate this to the Model Case, and attempt to convince the Court that the
desired decision is the only logical and reasonable finding.
2
 The Argument should be written in respectful, forceful and positive language
(the attorney team wants the Court to rule for its client, not simply against the
position of opposing counsel). Headings and subheadings, as listed in the Table of
Contents, are used to organize the argument. Citations referring to case authority
or statute must be used to support the points addressed.
The Argument section must be double-spaced (headings and subheadings may
be single-spaced) and may be no longer than 5 pages. Each page should be
numbered, beginning with the page number 3.

7. Conclusion
The Conclusion page is simply a final request that the Court take a specific
action. It includes the signatures of both members of the attorney team. This page
may be single-spaced and should be numbered.

3
YMCA MODEL TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT
CITATION FORMAT

The Purpose of Citations

Because the strength of a brief depends largely on how well previous court opinions
and precedents are applied to the model case, the citation of case law and statutes is of
critical importance.
The YIG model case packet includes several court opinions from a variety of
Reporters (reference books that publish court opinions) and may include materials
concerning statutes and constitutional law.
While different courts require specific citation formats, the following guidelines
serve for briefs prepared for the YMCA Model Supreme Court for the State of Tennessee.

Citation Format
Case Law:

Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987)

Stawicki v. Israel, 788 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1985)

Tennessee v. Wright, 756 S.W. 2d 669 (Tenn. 1988)

• Arizona v. Mauro , Stawicki v. Israel, and Tennessee v. Wright are the names of cases
and, as with all case names, these must be either italicized or underlined.
• 481, 788, and 756 are the volume numbers of the Reporters where the information for
each case is found.
• U.S. (U.S. Supreme Court Reports), F.2d (Federal Reporter, second series), and S.W. 2d
(South Western Reporter, second series) are the names of the Reporters in which each
opinion is found.
• 520, 380, and 669 are the page numbers on which each opinion begins.
• 1987 (U.S. Supreme Court, although no court is listed), 7th Cir. 1985 (U.S. 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals), and Tenn. 1988 (Supreme Court of Tennessee) give the courts and
the years in which the opinion was issued.
In the brief, specific pages must be cited when information is used to support an argument.
For example, if information from page 526 of Arizona v. Mauro is used in the brief, the
citation should include that specific page number:
Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 526 (1987)
Once a full citation, such as the one above, has been given in the brief, subsequent
citations for the same opinion may be abbreviated. For example, if the brief later gives
information from page 522 of Arizona v. Mauro, the following form is used:
Mauro, 481 U.S. at 522
Laws/Statutes:

1. Tennessee Code (full citation): Tennessee Code Annotated 12-5-204 (a) (1)

• 12 is the title, 5 is the chapter, and 204 is the section

• (a) is the heading and (1) is the sub-heading

Abbreviated form for subsequent citations: T.C.A. 12-5-204 (a) (1)

2. Federal Law (full citation): 10 United States Code section 3069

• 10 is the volume
• 3069 is the section

Abbreviated form for subsequent citations: 10 U.S.C. 3069

3. Constitutional Law (full citation): Article II, Section 2, Tennessee

Constitution

Article IV, Section 1, United States Constitution

Abbreviated form for subsequent citations: Art. II, Sec. 2, Tenn. Const.

Art. IV, Sec. 1, U.S. Const.

Amendments: First (or other) Amendment to the United States Constitution

Placement of Citations

Although it may seem awkward, it is proper to give a citation in the middle of the brief
narrative when referring to a specific court opinion or other reference material. If a
paragraph of the brief makes use of multiple references, it is correct to give all citations at
the end of the paragraph.
WHAT IS AN ORAL ARGUMENT
AND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM A BRIEF?
You will submit your written briefs to the YMCA before the YIG conference. Each of the
Justices of the Model Supreme Court will have a copy of your brief and will be familiar with it.
Do NOT read from your brief during your oral argument. Instead, use your brief as an outline
to follow as you “fill in” explanations and details.

For example, below is a section of the Sample Brief that is included in your YIG lawyer
materials:

When evaluating the reasonableness of a hotel's precautions, the court should

especially consider the effect of the hotel's design on its security measures, stated the court
in Peters, 278 N.W. 2d at 212. Even when an innkeeper has taken precautions that were quite
inferior to those provided in the instant case, courts have held as a matter of law that the
innkeeper did not breach his duty of reasonable care owed to his guests. Courtney v. Remler,
566 F. Supp. 1225, 1230 (D.S.C. 1983); Nixon v. Royal Coach Inn of Houston, 464 S.W.3d
900, 901 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971).

And here is how you might present that section during oral argument by using information
from the trial record (the YIG case) and case authorities (the other court cases provided to
you) to explain your position more fully:

“We ask that this Court apply the findings of the Peters, Courtney and Nixon courts.
The Peters court held that it is especially important to consider the design of a hotel when
evaluating the hotel’s security precautions. In the case at bar, the trial record shows that the
guest rooms of the Homeaway Hotel are located in an enclosed, internal courtyard that is not
accessible from the outside. This internal courtyard may be accessed only from the hotel lobby
or through the individual guest rooms, which can be locked and secured with a door key. The
Courtney and Nixon courts both held that even a hotel design that allows outsiders direct
access to such locking guest room doors fulfills the hotel’s duty of providing reasonable care.
In light of these court opinions, we contend that Appellee did provide reasonable care to
Appellants and did not breach its duty.”

Note: Be sure to refer to your case authority (the court cases) during oral argument. This is necessary to support
your argument.
 IN THE YMCA MODEL SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

CHIEF JUSTICE NAME

APPELLANT NAME CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE YMCA SUPREME COURT
APPELLANT
FIRST LAWYER’S NAME
VS. SECOND LAWYER’S NAME
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/APPELLEE NAME
APPELLEE NAME SCHOOL NAME
APPELLEE CITY, TN ZIP CODE

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT / APPELLEE,

NAME OF APPELLANT/APPELLEE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

NOTE: You may save this cover page, edit it, and use it for your briefs.

NOTE: The case authorities cited in this sample brief serve as examples only and do not refer to any existing court
opinions or statutes.

NOTE: The case presented in this brief is not related to your YIG case in any way. This sample brief is provided only
as a reference for how a brief might be constructed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Table of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Procedural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Summary of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE HOTEL
DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT
AN UNFORESEEABLE KIDNAPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A. The hotel owed guests only a duty of

reasonable care to protect them from
foreseeable criminal misconduct, not
a duty to prevent sudden, unexpected
criminal acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. The hotel could not have foreseen the

possibility of a kidnapping of one of its guests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

C. The hotel provided more than

reasonable protection for its guests
against criminal misconduct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND

PETITIONERS TO BE SO OVER-
WHELMINGLY NEGLIGENT AS TO
BAR THEIR RECOVERY, EVEN IF
THE HOTEL HAD BEEN NEGLIGENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Certificate of
Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. Was the trial court correct in granting summary judgment for the Homeaway Hotel
when the court held that the kidnapping of a child guest from his room was
unforeseeable, and that the hotel had provided its guests with reasonable protection
against criminal misconduct?

II. Was the trial court correct when it found parents so overwhelmingly negligent,
because they left their minor child alone in their unsecured hotel room, that they were
barred from recovering on their claim that the hotel was negligent for failing to prevent
the child from being kidnapped?

-i-
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Pages

Associated Engineer v. Job, 370 F.2d 633 (8th Cir. 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Brewer v. Roosevelt Motor Lodge, 295 A.2d 647 (Me. 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Courtney v. Remler, 566 F. Supp. 1225 (D.S.C. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Crabb v. Wade, 84 TN. 93, 167 N.W.2d 546 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Kveragas v. Scottish Inns, Inc., 733 F.2d 409 (6th Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5

McCoy v. Gay, 302 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Nixon v. Royal Coach Inn of Houston, 464 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. Civ.
App. 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Peters v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 208 (Wis. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Dorn, 292 So. 2d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Steinholz v. Modica, 264 S.W.2d 514 (TN. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Statutes

TN. Codified Laws Ann. 20-9-2 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Other Authorities

Restatement (Second) of Torts, 314A (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Procedural History

Appellants Mr. and Mrs. Charles Smith filed a complaint in the Knoxville Circuit
Court on November 2, 2016, alleging that Appellee, Homeaway Hotel, Inc. ("Hotel"),
was negligent in the kidnapping of their son, Alex Smith, from the Hotel in Knoxville,
Tennessee, on August 5, 2016. In their complaint, Appellants charged that the Hotel
owed Alex a duty of care to protect him from foreseeable harm, that the Hotel breached
this duty, and that this breach was the proximate cause of Alex's kidnapping.
The Hotel admitted to most of the factual allegations made in Appellants'
complaint but denied that it was in any way negligent. Consequently, the Hotel filed a
motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2016.
The Knoxville Circuit Court granted the Hotel's motion for summary judgment on
December 14, 2016, dismissing Appellants' complaint. The court held that the Hotel was
not responsible for the kidnapping because the kidnapper's actions were unforeseeable as
a matter of law and constituted "an independent intervening cause sufficient to relieve the
defendant from liability." The court also found that the Hotel had met the required
standard of care owed to Appellants. In addition, the court found Appellants' action in
leaving their child alone in a strange place to be overwhelmingly negligent, thus barring
their recovery from the Hotel.
Appellants sought an appeal from the trial court's decision on December 17, 2016.
This Court granted the appeal on December 29, 2016.

Note: In your briefs, this section is simply a summary of information from the trial record (the Model Case)
provided to you by the YIG.

-1-
Statement of Facts

The Appellee in this case, Homeaway Hotel, Inc., owns and operates the
Homeaway Hotel in Knoxville, Tennessee. The Appellants, Charles and Cynthia Smith,
are residents of Ormond Beach, Florida.
The Appellants, with their five-year-old son, arrived at Appellee's hotel on August
5, 2016. An agent/employee of the Appellee checked Appellants into the Hotel and gave
them the keys to their room on the first floor. Appellants' room was the third room along
a closed hallway, which begins in the Hotel lobby, goes through three successive right
turns, and returns to the lobby. The hallway, and the guest rooms that open off of it,
surround an internal courtyard. Guests and visitors to the Hotel may enter this courtyard
only from the Hotel lobby or through a sliding glass door located in each guest room.
After their check-in, Appellants registered complaints about the air conditioner in
their room, and the Hotel's employee at the front desk assured Appellants that he would
look into the problem. The Hotel staff was very busy, however, because of the need to
check-in other guests and prepare for a convention taking place at the Hotel that day.
Many Hotel employees, including two security guards, were assigned to convention
activities.
Soon after checking in, Appellants opened the rear sliding door in their room, but
they closed the door when they left for dinner. Upon returning to their guest room after
dinner, Appellants reopened the sliding door, leaving the screen door locked. At 9:00
P.M., Appellant Cynthia Smith left the guest room to find her husband, who had gone to
the Hotel's front desk. When Ms. Smith left the room, she left five-year-old Alex Smith
alone and asleep in the room with the rear sliding door still open. By the time Appellants
returned to their room, the room's rear screen door had been ripped off its tracks from the
outside and Alex was missing.
No previous criminal activity had been reported on the Hotel premises, and the
only similar incident reported in the area was a kidnapping which had occurred at a local
shopping center several weeks earlier.

Note: In your briefs, this section is simply a summary of information from the trial record (the case)
provided to you by the YIG.

-2-
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

A great majority of jurisdictions hold that an innkeeper must take only reasonable
precautions to protect his guests against only criminal misconduct which is foreseeable.
In the instant case, the trial court was correct in finding that the Hotel could not have
reasonably foreseen the possibility of the kidnapping of one of its guests and did not have
a duty to prevent the occurrence of a sudden, unexpected kidnapping.
Although the Hotel did not have a duty to prevent an unforeseeable kidnapping,
by virtue of its enclosed design, security guards, and guest room door locks, it provided
guests more than reasonable protection against criminal misconduct in general. The
parents, however, negligently left their rear door both unlocked and open. The
kidnapping, therefore, constituted an independent, intervening cause as a matter of law
and justified the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
Even if this Court determines that the remote possibility of the Hotel's negligence
is a question of fact, this Court should still find that the trial court was correct in barring
Appellant's recovery because their abandonment of the child in an unsecured hotel room
constitutes overwhelming negligence as a matter of law.

Note: This is simply a short statement of the major points you will make in your argument section.

-3-
 ARGUMENT

I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BECAUSE THE HOTEL DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT AN
UNFORESEEABLE KIDNAPPING.

A. The Hotel owed guests only a duty of reasonable care to protect them from
foreseeable criminal misconduct, not a duty to prevent sudden, unexpected
criminal acts.

The great majority of state courts, 48 in total, hold that an innkeeper has a duty to

take only ordinary or reasonable precautions to protect guests against the unreasonable

risk of harm from third parties. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Dorn, 292 So. 2d 429, 432

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974); Restatement (Second) of Torts 314A (1965). Likewise, the

court in Kveragas v. Scottish Inns, Inc., 733 F.2d 409 (6th Cir. 1984) held that an

innkeeper is not an insurer that is held liable under all circumstances for injuries to his

guests caused by third party criminal actions.

This Court ruled in Steinholz v. Modica, 264 S.W.2d 514, 516 (TN. 1978) that a

"possessor of land owes an invitee . . . the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care

for his safety." Under a standard of reasonable care, the court in Brewer v. Roosevelt

Motor Lodge, 295 A.2d 647 (Me. 1972) ruled that a hotel must exercise due care to

protect its guests against only reasonably foreseeable criminal misconduct. And, the

court in McCoy v. Gay, 302 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983), held that an innkeeper does

not have a duty to specifically prevent a sudden, unexpected criminal attack.

B. The Hotel could not have foreseen the possibility of a kidnapping of one of its
guests.

To determine whether an innkeeper should have reasonably anticipated criminal

-4-
actions by a third party against one of his guests, the court in Peters v. Holiday Inns, Inc.,

278 N.W.2d 208 (Wis. 1979) considered such factors as the extent of similar criminal

activities previously occurring on the hotel's premises, within its immediate area, or in

other local hotels. In Kveragas, the court held that, using the Peters analysis under

circumstances similar to those of the instant case, no reasonable person could find that

the hotel might have anticipated such a sudden, unprovoked kidnapping. Kveragas, 733

F.2d at 412.

C. The Hotel provided more than reasonable protection for its guests against
criminal misconduct.

When evaluating the reasonableness of a hotel's precautions, the court should

especially consider the effect of the hotel's design on its security measures, stated the

court in Peters, 278 N.W. 2d at 212. Even when an innkeeper has taken precautions that

were quite inferior to those provided in the instant case, courts have held as a matter of

law that the innkeeper did not breach his duty of reasonable care owed to his guests.

Courtney v. Remler, 566 F. Supp. 1225, 1230 (D.S.C. 1983); Nixon v. Royal Coach Inn of

Houston, 464 S.W.3d 900, 901 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971).

-5-
II. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND APPELLANTS TO BE SO
OVERWHELMINGLY NEGLIGENT AS TO BAR THEIR RECOVERY EVEN
IF THE HOTEL HAD BEEN NEGLIGENT.

According to TN. Codified Laws Ann. 20-9-2 (1979), if Appellants were

negligent in leaving their son alone in the Hotel's guest room, they may still recover from

the Hotel only if "the contributory negligence of the [Appellant] was slight in comparison

with the negligence of the [Hotel] . . . ." However, the court in Crabb v. Wade, 84 TN.

93, 98, 167 N.W.2d 546 (1969) held "there can be no application of this law unless both

parties are guilty of negligence proximately causing or contributing to the injuries

complained of." Thus, because the lower court properly ruled that the Hotel was not

negligent, this statute does not apply, and Appellants were properly barred from recovery

on their claim.

However, as stated by the court in Crabb, if both parties could be found negligent,

the negligence of both parties should first be determined separately, using the

“reasonable-person” standard, and then compared directly. In evaluating the quality of

guest negligence in similar cases, the court in Associated Eng’r v. Job, 370 F.2d 633 (8th

Cir. 1967) suggested criteria that includes the following: precautions guests took for their

own safety, the extent to which they should have known of the risk involved through

warnings or experience, and the foreseeability of injury from their action. Using this

analysis, no factual issue exists to mitigate the Appellants’ overwhelming negligence in

the instant case. Therefore, the lower court properly determined as a matter of law that

the Appellants’ grossly negligent conduct barred any possible recovery on their claim

against the Hotel.

-6-
 CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, Appellee requests that the YMCA Model Supreme Court
for the State of Tennessee at Nashville affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
[Student Name]

_______________________
[Student Name]

Attorneys for the Appellee

Name of High School
Town, TN Zip
Date of Conference

-7-
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Brief has been sent by
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to all appropriate parties, this_____ day of February 2017.

______________________________
[Student Name]

______________________________
[Student Name]

-8-
 Tennessee Model Supreme Court
Component Policies and Rules of Court 2014

table of contents

I. General................................................................ 1 Appendix A: Table of officers..................................9

II. Election rules...................................................... 2 Appendix B: Table of awards...................................10

A. Offices................................................. 2 Appendix C: Nomination form ...............................11

B. Conduct of elections........................... 3
C. Disputes, special circumstances.......... 4 Appendix D: Sample ballot.....................................12

III. Court procedure................................................ 5

A. Main moot court competition............. 5

1. Written pleadings................. 5
2. Placing in divisions............... 6
3. Oral argument...................... 6
4. Selecting finalists.................. 7
5. Final round........................... 7

B. Judicial review..................................... 7

1
 i. general

1. precedence of general conference rules – All of the general rules and policies of the
Center for Civic Engagement and the Youth in Government conference apply to the Supreme Court as
well, but these rules take precedence in the event of a conflict and where they are more specific.

2. interpretation of these policies – The interpretation of these rules is at the discretion

of the state director and, in her stead as circumstances require, the component leaders.

3. conduct in the component – At all times, every adult and youth participant in the
component will act in such a way as to promote a friendly and respectful atmosphere of debate and
learning. In particular, this means that:

(a) Conduct or behavior contrary to the policies of the YMCA, including but not limited to
harassment, possession of contraband, or plagiarism at any stage of the Model Supreme Court
competition is strictly prohibited.
(b) In the event of misconduct, the State Director may disqualify any officer or lawyer from
participation in any or all aspects of the component or conference.

4. functions of the court – The functions of the Model Supreme Court are:

(a) to conduct an appellate moot court competition among lawyer teams in two divisions,
novice and senior, and to choose two finalist teams, and one winner team in each; and
(b) at the court’s discretion, to conduct oral judicial review proceedings to determine the
constitutionality of a bill where there is a disagreement between the bill’s sponsors and the
Attorney-General about its constitutionality.

5. leadership of the court – The Supreme Court is presided over by the Chief Justice within
the parameters set forth by the Center for Civic Engagement and the component leaders. In particular,
the Chief Justice

(a) sets the court docket, presides over all oral argument sessions and all other sessions and
meetings of the justices and the court, and bears overall responsibility for the main mooting
competition; and
(b) decides which bills, if any, over which to hear judicial review proceedings and when these
hearings will take place.

6. role of component leaders – The component leaders have overall responsibility for the
component, particularly:

(a) supervision of the component participants;

(b) assistance with the cases and the law; and
(c) the selection of award winners for the best written pleadings, the outstanding justice award,
and, at their discretion and subject to the approval of the state director, a delegate and/or
alternate to the National Affairs conference.

2
7. supreme court bar – The Supreme Court Bar consists of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-
General, and all the lawyers participating in the conference in both divisions.

8. prohibition of money – No money should ever change hands in the Supreme Court
component. This includes but is not limited to bill sponsors’ retainer of attorney teams. Candidates
may not spend any money on their election campaigns.

ii. election rules

a. offices

9. officers – The officers of the Supreme Court are the Chief Justice, four Associate Justices, the
Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Clerk of the Court, and the Marshal of the Court.

10. chief justice – In addition to the responsibilities set out in rule 5 above, the Chief Justice
represents the component as a whole at the conference, administers the oath of office to conference
officers, and performs such other duties as the conference or the CCE may require.

11. associate justices – The Associate Justices assist the Chief Justice in the conduct of oral
hearings, and, at the direction of the Chief Justice, the administration of the court and the assistance of
bill sponsors and members of the Supreme Court Bar. They participate in the scoring process that
determines the finalists in each division of the mooting competition, and vote in all decisions of the
Court in cases where they have sat on the bench for the oral argument. If the Chief Justice is prevented
from presiding over an oral hearing, she will designate an Associate Justice to preside in her place.

12. attorney-general – The Attorney-General forms part of the lawyer team representing the
State of Tennessee in judicial review proceedings. She advises conference participants in any
component about the constitutionality of proposed legislation or Governor’s Cabinet initiatives. If she
disagrees with the sponsors of a bill about the constitutionality of that bill and the matter is set for oral
hearing in the Supreme Court, she assists the Solicitor General in the preparation and delivery of that
argument.

13. solicitor-general – The Solicitor-General forms part of the lawyer team representing the
State of Tennessee in judicial review proceedings. She bears primary responsibility for the preparation
and argument of judicial review proceedings before the Supreme Court, and serves as leading counsel
in these hearings.

14. clerk of the court – The Clerk of the Court prepares public notice of the court docket,
serves as the liaison between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Bar, and bears general
responsibility for the administrative management of the Supreme Court, including the preparation and
delivery of written communications to other components as to the Court’s decision in judicial review
proceedings. The Clerk also assists the component leaders in the preparation of election materials. She
also assists the Marshal during oral arguments as necessary.

15. marshal of the court – The Marshal of the Court ensures the smooth conduct of oral
hearings. She announces the opening of proceedings and the entrance of the justices (along with

3
appropriate gavel-banging), and keeps and notifies counsel of time during oral argument. She assists the
Clerk in the administration of the court as necessary.

b. conduct of elections

16. nomination of candidates – The component leaders will make written nomination forms
(Appendix C) available at the start of the conference. These nomination forms must be completed and
returned to the component leaders by the end of the Saturday lunch break. No candidate may stand for
election who has not turned in a completed nomination form in good time.

17. time and day of elections – Elections are conducted in the last hour of business on
Saturday as scheduled in the conference bill book. The election session is presided over by the
component leaders.

18. eligibility to vote – The Chief Justice, the Associate Justices, the Clerk, the Marshal, and
the members of the Supreme Court Bar are eligible to vote. No one who is participating in a component
other than the Supreme Court at the current conference is eligible to stand or vote in the election.

19. manner of elections – Elections to the offices of the Supreme Court are free, fair, equal, and
conducted in secret.

20. voting procedure, counting of votes – Voting is done on the ballot papers provided in
the election session, which are prepared in accordance with the example in Appendix D.

(a) Voters may vote for as many candidates as there are officer positions to fill. For the Chief
Justice race, they may mark one choice; for Associate Justice, four; for Attorney-
General/Solicitor-General, two; for Clerk/Marshal, two.
(b) A ballot paper that does not clearly indicate any choice or indicates too many candidates is
not valid and not counted in respect of that race.

21. counting of votes – The component leaders count the votes cast and communicate the
result to the State Director. Results are not released until the closing session of the YIG conference on
Sunday. The results and the original ballot papers are kept by the CCE until the close of the following
conference.

22.candidate speeches – At the election session, each candidate will have the opportunity to
make a one-minute speech for each race in which she is running. The component leaders may intervene
to end a speech prematurely or disqualify a candidate if the content of the speech is inappropriate.

23. absence of voters and candidates – Neither speeches nor votes may be made by proxy,
but a candidate may stand for election without being present at the election session itself.

24. determining the candidates elected – The winner of each election is as set out in
Appendix A. In the event of a tie, the tie will be resolved by the component leaders. A tie will not be
resolved if it is not necessary to in order to determine the winners, especially in the Associate Justice
race.

4
 c. special situations, dispute of elections

25. unavailability of officer-elect – In general, if an officer withdraws from the

conference, resigns, or is declared ineligible to participate before the start of the conference at which
she was to have been an officer, she will be replaced with the candidate who received the next-highest
number of votes at the election or, at the discretion of the state director, with someone elected to that
position at another conference as outlined in (b) and (d) below.

(a) If the name of the runner-up cannot be determined or is not contained in the election
records, the state director will fill the office using her discretion.
(b) If more than one candidate received the next-highest number of votes and there are fewer
vacant positions than candidates who received the next-highest number of votes, the state
director will fill the office using her discretion in consultation with the component leaders.
(c) As a rule, there should never be more than one chief justice or more than four associate
justices at any one conference.
(d) If a student is elected to office for a given conference and her school later chooses not to
participate in that conference or to attend Youth in Government at a different conference in the
same year, that student may nevertheless serve in the officer position to which she was elected.
Special arrangements for such circumstance will be made directly with the State Director as the
case arises.

26. disputed election – If there is any dispute about the conduct of the election, the filling of
vacant offices after the election, or the interpretation of these rules, the state director has discretion to
finally and bindingly settle the matter in the manner she sees fit.

iii. court procedure

a. the main moot court competition

1. written phase

27. briefs – The preparation of written pleadings (“briefs”) is a critical step in the preparation for
oral argument, and a mandatory task for all lawyer teams wishing to participate in the competition.

28. briefs to be prepared by each team – Each participant lawyer team must hand in briefs
for both sides of the moot court case by the deadline set by the state director. The Chief Justice may
disqualify teams who have not submitted briefs by the start of the conference.

29. form and content of briefs – The briefs are to conform to the guidelines set out in the
YIG Delegate Manual and the Model Supreme Court Lawyer Packet.

30. no additional authorities – This rule does not apply to general doctrines of the common
law or to the constitutions of the United States or the State of Tennessee, but no team may cite or rely
on a case or statute which neither appears in the standard table of authorities provided by the CCE in
the lawyer packet nor is cited by an opinion in those cases.

5
 2. assignment of teams to divisions

31. procedure, mandatory criteria – The Chief Justice will, with the advice and
consultation of the Associate Justices, assign each team to either the Novice or the Senior division. In
doing so, she must take the following factors into consideration:

(a) The quality of the team’s written pleadings;

(b) The YIG and MUN court experience of the teams as stated on their registration forms;
(c) The grade level of the team participants.

32. optional criteria – The Chief Justice may also take the following factors into consideration:
(a) The overall size of the competition and the relative size of the novice and senior divisions; (b) Law-
related experience other than in a MUN or YIG conference (e.g. mock trial), or non-law public
speaking experience (e.g. debate team, forensics, or other YIG or MUN experience).

33. prohibited criteria – The Chief Justice may not take into consideration any personal
information about the lawyer participants other than their grade level, including (but not limited to)
their school or town of origin.

3. oral arguments

34. format of oral arguments – Each team has an overall total of thirty minutes to present
their argument at oral hearing. There is no obligation to use all of this time, and teams may apportion it
between their main argument and (re-)rebuttal however they wish.

(a) The Chief Justice may equally reduce the time allotted to both teams at her discretion, but
not to less than ten minutes for each side.
(b) The order of arguments is:

(1) Main argument by the Appellant

(2) Main argument by the Appellee
(3) Rebuttal by the Appellant (subject to time remaining)
(4) Re-Rebuttal by the Appellee (subject to time remaining)

35. exhaustion of time – No team is entitled to rebuttal or re-rebuttal if they have used all of
their time for their main argument.

36. scope of rebuttal – The Appellant may not raise any issue during rebuttal not addressed by
the appellee in their main argument; the appellee may not raise any issue during re-rebuttal not raised
by the appellant on rebuttal.

37. questions from the bench – Counsel should be prepared to be interrupted by questions
from the bench. Time continues to run while these questions are being asked and answered.

38. no additional authorities – Rule 30 above also governs the oral argument phase.

6
39. order of divisions – A complete round of senior division cases will be called before any
novice division rounds are called.

40. minimum number of rounds – Each team must argue the appellant side at least once and
the appellee side at least once.

41. giving of judgment – At the conclusion of oral argument, the court will issue a ruling on the
merits of the case and feedback about the lawyers’ performance. They may take time for deliberation
before doing so. The verdict and feedback will be delivered in a manner designated by the Chief Justice.
The team who loses on the merits may still receive a higher score than the winner under rule 42 below.

4. selecting finalists

42. scoring system – The Chief Justice will set and adhere to a consistent scoring system for the
selection of a finalist appellant team and a finalist appellee team in each division of the competition.
The system for selection must be fair, transparent, appropriate, documented, and decipherable and
reviewable by the component leaders and the state director, all of whom reserve the right to reject it
and replace it with a different system. This also applies to the selection of a winner in each division in
the final round.

43. selection and announcement – Once the court has made its decision, the finalists will be
announced at the close of the election session on Saturday, or, at the discretion of the component
leader, earlier. They are excused from all conference activities following the announcement, subject to
the supervision and guidelines of the component leaders and the teams’ advisors.

5. the final round

44. general procedure applies – The general procedure for oral arguments in rules 34–38
above applies to the final round as well.

45. [Repealed.]

46. reservation of judgment – The court will reserve judgment at the end of the final round
and give neither a verdict nor feedback; the winners will be announced as the outstanding attorney
team for their respective divisions at the closing session of the conference.

b. judicial review

1. initiation of judicial review proceedings

47. standing to challenge bill – The Attorney-General may challenge the constitutionality
of any bill or Governor’s Cabinet proposal by bringing a judicial review action in the Supreme Court.
She brings the action by notifying the Clerk of the Court and the sponsors of the bill or cabinet
proposal at the earliest possible time.

7
48. decision to grant hearing – The Chief Justice may grant oral argument of judicial review
proceedings once she is satisfied that the bill sponsors have been given notice of the proceedings. She
will communicate to the sponsors and the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General the day and time of
the oral hearing and summon them to appear.

49. counsel for the state – Leading counsel for the State of Tennessee in judicial review
proceedings will be the Solicitor-General, with the assistance of the Attorney-General.

50. counsel for the sponsors – The sponsors of the bill may argue the case themselves, or
they may retain an attorney team from the Supreme Court Bar to represent them.

51. no default judgments – The Chief Justice shall not set an oral hearing for judicial review
proceedings in respect of a bill or proposal if the sponsors are unwilling to appear and no advocates can
be found to represent them.

2. judicial review hearing procedure

52. general procedure applies – Rules 34–37 about oral argument apply to judicial review
proceedings.

53. duty to share authorities – Counsel must advise their opponent team fairly and in good
time of the authorities on which they intend to rely. If at all possible, they must provide their opponents
and the Court with copies of these authorities.

54. judgment and report thereof – The Court must rule on the merits of the case, but need
not give feedback on the lawyers’ performance. The Clerk will communicate the verdict to any relevant
conference component as mandated by the Chief Justice.

8
 appendix a: table of officers

office voting system experience dual candidacy?

required
Chief Justice Most votes wins current conference on can also run for
bench, as AG or SG, as Associate Justice
clerk/marshal, or as
senior attorney
Associate Justice Four candidates with current conference on can also run for Chief
highest vote totals bench, as Justice
elected clerk/marshal, or at bar
(including AG/SG)
Attorney-General Most votes in current conference YIG AG/SG combined race;
combined AG/SG race bench, clerk/marshal, cannot run for anything
or bar else
Solicitor-General Second-most votes in current conference YIG AG/SG combined race;
combined AG/SG race bench or bar cannot run for anything
else
Clerk of the Court Most votes in current YIG conference Clerk/marshal races
combined bench, clerk/marshal, combined; cannot run
clerk/marshal race or bar for anything else
Marshal of the Court Second-most votes in current YIG conference Clerk/marshal races
combined bench, clerk/marshal, combined; cannot run
clerk/marshal race or bar for anything else

9

Award name
Outstanding attorney team
(senior)
Outstanding attorney team
(novice)
Outstanding briefs (senior)
Outstanding briefs (novice)
Outstanding justice
National Affairs delegate
and/or alternate
appendix b: table of awards
Winner chosen by Award given...
Justices at every conference
Justices at every conference
at the component leaders’
Component leaders
discretion
at the component leaders’
Component leaders
discretion
Component leaders at every conference
at the component leaders’
Component leaders
discretion
10
 Tennessee Model Supreme Court
officer candidate nomination form

Attention all potential officer candidates: this form is to be completed and returned to the Supreme
Court component leaders at the conference by the start of the first case on Saturday. Failure to hand in
a completed form by this time will mean that you are not eligible to run for office.

candidate information

Name:

School: Grade:

Name of advisor signing this form below:

declaration of candidacy: I am running for the following office (mark only one):

____ Chief Justice ONLY

____ Associate Justice ONLY

____ Chief Justice AND Associate Justice

____ Attorney-General / Solicitor General

____ Clerk / Marshal

declaration of experience: At the current conference, I am:

____ Chief Justice or Associate Justice

____ Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, or senior division attorney

____ Clerk or Marshal

____ Novice division attorney

approval of candidacy: I, the undersigned candidate, certify that all of the information on this
form is true and correct. I, the undersigned advisor, support this student's candidacy for the above
office.

____________________________ ____________________________

candidate advisor

11
 Tennessee Model Supreme Court
supreme court election ballot

2057 conference c

chief justice (vote for one):

____ Thurgood MARSHALL

____ Antonin SCALIA

associate justice (vote for up to four):

____ William Howard TAFT

____ Louis BRANDEIS

____ Clarence DARROW

____ Sonia SOTOMAYOR

____ Benjamin CARDOZO

attorney-general and solicitor-general (vote for up to two):

____ Janet RENO

____ Theodore OLSON

____ Lance ITO

____ Alberto GONZALES

clerk of the court and marshal of the court (vote for up to two):

____ David BOIES

____ Marcia CLARK

____ Romo LAMPKIN

____ Nancy GRACE

12