FGV Metropolitan Edison Company V People Against Nuclear Energy Memorandum Answer questions about the passage (business law)Metropolitan Edison Company own

FGV Metropolitan Edison Company V People Against Nuclear Energy Memorandum Answer questions about the passage (business law)Metropolitan Edison Company owned and operated two nuclear-fueled power plants at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Both power plants were licensed by the NRC after extensive proceedings and investigations, including the preparation of the required environmental impact statements. When one of the power plants was shut down for refueling, the other plant suffered a serious accident that damaged the reactor. The governor of Pennsylvania recommended an evacuation of all pregnant women and small children, and many area residents did not leave their homes for several days. As it turned out, no dangerous radiation was released.People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE), an association of area residents who opposed further operation of the nuclear power plants at Three Mile Island, sued to enjoin the plants from reopening. They argued that the reopening of the plants would cause severe psychological health damage to persons living in the vicinity and serious damage to the stability and cohesiveness of the community. Are these reasons sufficient to prevent the reopening of the nuclear power plants? Is it socially responsible for the federal government to permit the operation of nuclear power plants? Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 103 S.Ct. 1556, 1983 U.S. Lexis 21 (Supreme Court of the United States)Please follow the instruction and examples Ch 45 EOC Writing Assignment
Metropolitan Edison Company owned and operated two nuclearfueled power plants at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. Both power plants were licensed by the NRC after
extensive proceedings and investigations, including the
preparation of the required environmental impact statements.
When one of the power plants was shut down for refueling, the
other plant suffered a serious accident that damaged the reactor.
The governor of Pennsylvania recommended an evacuation of all
pregnant women and small children, and many area residents did
not leave their homes for several days. As it turned out, no
dangerous radiation was released.
People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE), an association of area
residents who opposed further operation of the nuclear power
plants at Three Mile Island, sued to enjoin the plants from
reopening. They argued that the reopening of the plants would
cause severe psychological health damage to persons living in
the vicinity and serious damage to the stability and cohesiveness
of the community. Are these reasons sufficient to prevent the
reopening of the nuclear power plants? Is it socially responsible
for the federal government to permit the operation of nuclear
power plants? Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against
Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 103 S.Ct. 1556, 1983 U.S. Lexis
21 (Supreme Court of the United States)
Written work must follow this format:
• Must be in Legal Memo Format;
• Times Roman 12 point font;
• 1 – inch margins; Complete sentences;
• Answer the question completely;
• Grades are based on CONTENT.
Memorandum
To:
Professor Jones
From: Bill Jones
RE:
United States v. Virginia
Date: February 14, 2020
Question Presented
What is the legal question presented in this case? What crimes have been committed?
Short Answer
What was the Courts decision?
Statement of Facts
There are two types of facts to include here: (1) Procedural history. This is the “story” of the
case’s progress in the courts, from the time the plaintiff filed its complaint in court, to the
appeal to the court that made the final decision in the case. (2) Legally relevant facts. These
are the events giving rise to the parties’ dispute that the court found necessary to its decision.
Omit other facts. HINT: You will probably not know which facts are legally relevant until you
have read the entire case and understand its holding. Therefore, to avoid an overly long Facts
section, write the Facts portion of your case brief last.
Discussion
This the court’s answer to the Issue posed in the case. A weak statement of the discussion of
the sample Issue above would be “no.” Although a “yes” or “no” holding might be technically
correct, it may not be helpful. For example, if your professor asks you for the holding of Doe v.
Doe, she is not asking for a simple “no” answer. Instead, incorporate into your Discussion the
language of your Issue and the main factual reason why the court answered the Issue the way it
did. Your Discussion should stand on its own. (For example, a good discussion of the above
Issue would be, “The attorney-client privilege does not apply to the inmate’s communications
with the `jailhouse lawyer’ because the inmate did not believe that the `jailhouse lawyer’ was
an actual attorney.”)
Conclusion
Probably the most important part of the case brief, the Conclusion section describes how the
court resolved the Issue. Make sure to summarize all the logical steps the court took in
reaching its Discussion. Keep in mind that the court’s rationale can come from several different
sources, including case precedent, something particular in the facts, and/or public policy.
2
Memorandum
To:
Professor Jones
From: Bill Jones
RE:
Dixon and Hinton v. United States
Date: March 1, 2015
Question Presented
What crimes have Dixon and Hinton committed?
Short Answer
Bribery
Statement of Facts
The city of Peoria received federal block grants from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The
purpose for the grants was the rehabilitation of residential structures, and community
development.
The city designated a community based corporation (UNI) to be in charge of
administering these grants. UNI solicited bids from contractors to perform the work on those
homes that qualified for the program. After soliciting bids it was UNI who awarded the contracts
to the winning bidder.
Arthur Dixson and James Lee Hinton worked for UNI. Dixon and Hinton had a salary
paid for by the Federal government. The entire cost of the rehabilitation program was paid for by
the Federal government
Ora Logsdon was a contractor that received contract from UNI.
Gerald Lilly was a contractor who received contracts from UNI.
Bribery prohibits any “public official” from directly or indirectly asking, demanding,
soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value in return for being influenced in the
performance of any official act.
Discussion
Ora Logsdon was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. He testified that
received ten contracts as part of a deal with Dixson and Hinton. Logsdon said the deal was
Dixson and Hinton would award the contracts to him if he paid them 10 percent of the total
amount of the contract.
Gerard Lilly was a contractor who received contracts from UNI. Lilly testified Dixon told
him that if he paid Dixon 10% of the contract price he would receive the contract. Lilly also
testified that Dixon and Hinson helped him prepare bids, and told Lilly that submitting the bids
was a formality. Lilly testified that after receiving the check for the rehabilitation job he
completed he paid Dixson.
Dixon and Hinton tried to argue that they weren’t public officials and therefore the
bribery charge didn’t apply to their situation. However because Dixon and Hinton received a
2
salary from the Federal government while working for a program entirely funded by the Federal
government, they are considered “public officials”.
Conclusion
Because Dixon and Hinton were public officials, and they both asked for and received
kickbacks for the awarding of contracts, they are both guilty of bribery.
3

Purchase answer to see full
attachment