Moot Court Board News
Congratulations to Ashley Duncan and Brittany Drucker who received Best Brief for Appellant at the 2008 National Animal Advocacy Competitions, held at Harvard on February 15-17, 2008. Duncan and Drucker's brief made a facial challenge to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and an as-applied challenge, arguing that defendant's actions were protected by the first amendment and not within the scope of the Act.
Professor Jennifer Hall acted as the team's advisor.
For more information about the competition, please visit the National Center for Animal Law's website.
To read the winning brief, please click here.
All MCB members need to stop by the MCB office this week to stuff envelopes for the first year oral arguments. Those students who stuff the most envelopes will be first choice to be student judges at the event this year. Please stop by and help out.
Good luck to the ABA Negotiations Competition Team!! The team of David Scott and Scott Powell will be representing the University of Louisville School of Law at the National Competition in Los Angeles, CA February 7 and 8.
Having finished 2nd in the regional competition last semester, Scott and Dave qualified for the national compeition this week. Good Luck Gentlemen!!
The Moot Court Board is looking for student volunteers to sit as judges for the Environmental Law Moot Court’s practice sessions. Although not required, exposure to environmental law would be helpful. The practice sessions are on February 7 and February 14 from 3:30-5:30. The team’s success at the national competition rests on the quality of practice sessions. Students’ comments and critique of the team’s oral arguments would prove extremely valuable in helping the team hone their arguments and skills. If interested, please contact Patrick Watson at firstname.lastname@example.org or Josh Roberts at email@example.com
Professor Long is happy to accept writing samples (preferably a brief) for the Environmental Law Comeptition by email at firstname.lastname@example.org through Saturday, Sept 29.
The Trademark team is seeking 2-L and 3-L students interested in
intellectual property and unfair competition law. Two (2) teams of two
(2) students each will be selected to compete at the Trademark and
Unfair Competition Law Regional Tournament in Chicago on February 9,
2008. Qualifying teams advance to the National Tournament in
Washington, D.C. on March 22, 2008.
Interested 2nd and 3rd year students should select a try-out/competition
partner and sign up on the sheet posted on the Moot Court Board office
door by Thursday, September 27, 2007. The problem will be distributed on
Friday, September 28, 2007.
Try-out briefs are due and oral arguments will be held on October 5,
1. Each team member must submit an appellate brief. One team member
must write for the appellant and the other for the appellee.
2. The brief’s argument section may not exceed three (3) pages in
3. Each team member must prepare a 12-minute oral argument for both
sides of the case problem. Each team member will argue one side of the
case, to be determined on the day of try-outs.
Profs. John Cross and Lars Smith will serve as team coaches. For
questions, please contact Prof. Cross at email@example.com.
Attn: All Law Students
The undergraduate Moot Court team is in need of volunteers to judge practice Moot Court sessions at Ekstrom Library. You would volunteer for one hour in October or the beginning of November - it is a limited time commitment. Please contact Mary Hora at firstname.lastname@example.org or 502-595-3436 if you are interested. This would be a beneficial opportunity for any law student and a great resume booster.
See Mary's description of the hypothetical below:
There is a hypothetical case that the students are arguing which the judges should read over beforehand (should take about twenty minutes). The case involves the Congressional gun free school zones act, and the two issues are 1)the scope of the 2d Amendment right to bear arms and 2)whether in passing the act Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause. I would be happy to provide questions to judges who are not familiar enough with con law to formulate impromptu questions. I also think that even law students who haven't done con law yet could come up with some really good questions on the spur of the moment, especially on the 2d Amendment question.