assignment business law topic law and legal reasoning

Appeals from trial courts can ascend through intermediate courts to the highest levels, such as state supreme courts or the United States Supreme Court.b State Court Decisions:- Trial Co

-

-ASSIGNMENT

BUSINESS LAW

TOPIC:

LAW AND LEGAL REASONING

Student’s name: Dinh Ngoc Minh Duc

Vu Anh Duc Dao Binh Minh Nguyen Khoi Nguyen

Class: Advanced Finance 64D

Lecturer: Dr Tran Van Nam

Ha Noi, November 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I GENERAL KNOWLEDGE 3

1 Precedent Explanation 3

2 Case law Explanation 3

3 Finding Case Law 4

a) Introduction to the U.S Court System: 4

b) State Court Decisions: 4

c) Citation of Appellate Decisions: 5

d) Regional Units and National Reporter System: 5

e) Federal Court Decisions: 5

f) Unpublished Opinions and Old Cases: 5

II CASE 1-7 The Doctrine of Precedent (United States v White) 5

1 Case Summary 5

2 Court’s Opinion 6

3 Analysis 7

a) Standard of Review 7

b) Defining “Use” Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1028A 7

3 Court’s decision and ethical perspective 8

III RELATED TO VIETNAM 8

1 Legal frame work in Vietnam 9

2 Process of selecting, publishing and applying case law in Viet Nam 9

a) Criteria for selecting case law 9

b) Applying precedent in trial 10

c) Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP on the process of selecting, publishing and applying precedents 10

3 Challenges in the Current Application of Legal Precedents in Vietnam 11

IV REFERENCE 13

I GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

1 Precedent Explanation

Precedent or stare decisis is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case

relevant to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts Common-law legal systems often view precedent as binding or persuasive, while civil law systems do not Common-law systems aim for similar facts to yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observing precedent when making decisions is the mechanism to achieve that goal Common-law precedent is

a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in

UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance) The principle by which judges

are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal

meaning of "to stand in the things that have been decided")

The doctrine of precedent is the custom of the courts to stand by previous decisions, so that once a point of law is decided upon by a court, then the same law must be applied to future cases with materially similar facts

2 Case law Explanation

Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on

precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based

on constitutions statutes, , or regulations Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the

3

decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions

These judicial interpretations are distinguished from statutory law, which are codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law, which are established by executive agencies based on statutes In some jurisdictions, case law can be applied

to ongoing adjudication; for example, criminal proceedings or family law

In common law countries (including the United Kingdom United States, Canada, ,

Hong Kong Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand), it is used for judicial decisions of selected appellate courts courts, first instance of , agency tribunals, and other bodies discharging adjudicatory functions

3 Finding Case Law

a) Introduction to the U.S Court System:

Before delving into the case reporting system, it's essential to briefly understand the structure of the U.S court system, encompassing federal and state courts Both systems involve multiple tiers, with trial courts at the bottom, handling evidence and testimony Appeals from trial courts can ascend through intermediate courts to the highest levels, such as state supreme courts or the United States Supreme Court

b) State Court Decisions:

- Trial Court Decisions: Most state trial court decisions are not published, except in

a few states like New York

-Appellate Court Decisions: Decisions from state appellate courts are published in volumes known as reports or reporters State appellate court decisions are also part

of the National Reporter System, often used widely due to its accessibility

c) Citation of Appellate Decisions:

After publication, appellate decisions are cited by the name of the case, volume, name, and page number of the state's official reporter and the National Reporter

Parallel citations are used when multiple reporters are involved Example:

"Ramirez v Health Net of Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn 1, 938 A.2d 576 (2008)."

d) Regional Units and National Reporter System:

- The National Reporter System categorizes states into regions (e.g., Atlantic, North Eastern) and provides a regional breakdown

e) Federal Court Decisions:

- Federal district court decisions are unofficially published in West’s Federal Supplement

- Circuit court opinions are unofficially reported in West’s Federal Reporter

- Federal bankruptcy cases are unofficially reported in West’s Bankruptcy Reporter

- The United States Reports is the official edition for U.S Supreme Court decisions

f) Unpublished Opinions and Old Cases:

- Unpublished opinions or those not intended for publication can be accessed through Westlaw

- Old cases, occasionally cited, may have non-conforming citations due to replaced reporters

This breakdown highlights the key components of the passage, providing a clearer understanding of the process of finding and citing case law in the U.S

II CASE 1-7 The Doctrine of Precedent (United States v White)

1 Case Summary

Sandra White and her husband Joseph White owned and operated a travel agency named Corporate Travel Consultants (CTC) since 1989 In order to obtain low airline fares for the agency's clients, White routinely booked military-rate travel for her non-military-member clients by providing false information about her clients' ages, possession of various discount certificates, and military status As a travel agent, White could obtain additional revenue through commissions, service fees, and additional bookings White manufactured fake military identification cards and sent them to the airlines as alleged proof of her clients' military credentials The airlines suspected that the military identification cards were forged because a suspicious number of her clients are military personnel and contacted investigators

5

Additionally, at trial, it has been revealed that she charged service fees and other airfare directly to her client's credit cards, sometimes for persons other than those specific clients, and sometimes without their permission The trial court considered two precedent cases In one case, David Miller falsely claimed to have his investor approved to buy a loan when they didn't In the other case, Kathy Medlock who work as an ambulance service operator had falsely used the ambulance to transport patients that didn't have the medical necessity to do so She had been making counterfeit copies of a physician’s signature in order to obtain payment [United States v White, 846 F.3d 170 (6th Cir 2017)].2 In the Words of the Court

2 Court’s Opinion

Sandra White (“White”) and her husband Joseph White operated a travel agency In order to obtain low airline fares for the agency's clients, White routinely booked military-rate travel for her non-military-member clients When airlines became suspicious of White's practices, and asked her for proof of her clients' military status, White manufactured fake military identification cards and sent them to the airlines as alleged proof of her clients' military credentials The airlines suspected that the military identification cards were forged and contacted investigators After

a jury trial, White was convicted of mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, and sentenced to a total of ninety-four months of imprisonment

White now challenges her conviction and sentence on the basis that (1) the district court read an improper definition of the term “use” into the aggravated identity theft statute; (2) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit certain evidence of White's intention to repay some of the airlines' losses; and (3) the district court erred in calculating the amount of White's victims' losses For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court

3 Analysis

a) Standard of Review

 Statutory Construction: Whether the district court correctly interpreted

"uses" in 18 U.S.C § 1028A is a statutory construction issue Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo (United States v Miller, 734 F.3d 530,

539, 2013) Also, the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment is subject

to de novo review (United States v Ali, 557 F.3d 715, 720, 2009)

 Evidentiary Rulings: Evidentiary rulings by the district court are reviewed

for abuse of discretion Abuse of discretion occurs when there are clearly erroneous findings, improper application of the law, or use of an erroneous legal standard (United States v Freeman, 730 F.3d 590, 595, 2013)

 Amount of Loss Calculation: The district court's calculation of the "amount

of loss" is reviewed for clear error, but the methodology behind it is considered de novo The court must determine the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence, and findings should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous (United States v Meda, 812 F.3d 502, 519, 2015; United States v McCarty, 628 F.3d 284, 290, 2010) To challenge this calculation, the defendant must demonstrate that the evaluation was not only inexact but outside the acceptable universe of computations (United States v Martinez,

588 F.3d 301, 326, 2009)

b) Defining “Use” Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1028A

Defendant Sandra White challenges her conviction of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C § 1028A, arguing that the district court incorrectly applied precedent The statute criminalizes knowingly transferring, possessing, or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person during a felony violation White was accused of using the names of individuals, for whom she fraudulently obtained military fares, to manufacture fake Armed Forces Identification Cards She then sent these cards to airlines in an attempt to justify previously obtained reduced fares during her wire fraud scheme

White contends that the court misapplied United States v Miller (2013) and United States v Medlock (2015) In Miller, the defendant's conviction was reversed because, as a matter of law, he did not "use" a means of identification by signing a document falsely claiming authority from others Medlock similarly emphasized a narrow interpretation of "use" and concluded that misrepresentations about the defendants' own eligibility for reimbursement did not constitute using others' identities

7

The court distinguishes White's case, emphasizing her creation of fraudulent military identification cards submitted to airlines Unlike Miller and Medlock, where the defendants lied about their actions, White submitted false identification documents on behalf of others The court concludes that White's actions, particularly forging military identification cards and attempting to pass them off as clients' means of identification, fall within the statute

3 Court’s decision and ethical perspective

White’s actions most closely resemble Medlock’s forgery White not only told the airlines that her clients were members of the military—she created false

identification cards and sent them to the Airlines After a jury trial, White was convicted of mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, and sentenced to a total of ninety-four months of imprisonment

In all of these cases, the defendants engaged in dishonest conduct by lying about their actions Regardless of whether their actions aligned with statutory definitions

or matched those of other offenders, none of these parties can be considered to have acted ethically, as honesty is a fundamental component of ethical behavior in any context In the actual case on which this problem is based, the court concluded that White’s actions were most similar to Medlock’s

Consequently, White was convicted of identity theft On appeal, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction

III RELATED TO VIETNAM

1 Legal frame work in Vietnam

The term “precedent” was officially defined in the Judicial Council’s Resolution 03/2015/NQ-HĐTP dated October 28, 2015, as follows:

“Precedent is legal reasoning and rulings in a legally effective judgment or decision of a court on a specific case selected by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court and announced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedent for courts to study and apply in adjudication”

In general, a precedent is an adjudicated case or decision of a court of justice that provides a rule or authority for determining an identical or a similar case arising subsequently The theory on which it is possible for one decision to be an authority for another is either that the facts are alike or that, if the facts are different, the principle that governed the first case is applicable to the variant facts[4]

Subsequently, the Political Bureau’s Resolution 49/NQ-TW dated June 2, 2005, also provided: “The Supreme People’s Court has the task of summarizing trial experience, guiding the uniform application of the law, and developing

precedents”

2 Process of selecting, publishing and applying case law in Viet Nam

The 2015 Civil Code (Article 6), the 2015 Civil Procedure Code (Article 4 and Article 45.3), and the 2015 Administrative Procedure Law (Article 191.3) all have provisions on principles of application of and reference to precedents in the judicial decision-making process These legal grounds back the process of using precedents as a source of law in the Vietnamese legal system in the context of judicial reform

a) Criteria for selecting case law

Selected case law must meet the following criteria:

- Has the value of clarifying legal provisions that have different understandings, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and pointing out the principles, handling methods, and legal norms that need to be applied in the law a specific case or demonstrating fairness for issues that do not have specific laws;

- Have standards;

- Has the value of guiding the uniform application of law in trials

b) Applying precedent in trial

1 Precedents are studied and applied in trial after 30 days from the date of publication

2 During the trial, judges and jurors must research and apply precedents to ensure that cases with similar legal situations are resolved equally In case the case has similar legal situations but the Court does not apply the precedent, the reason must

be clearly stated in the Court's judgment or decision

9

3 In case the Court applies precedents to resolve the case, the number, name of the precedent, legal situations, legal solutions in the precedents, and legal situations of the case being resolved must be cited , analyzed in the “Court's Comments” section; Depending on each specific case, all or part of the content of the precedent can be quoted to clarify the Court's viewpoint in adjudicating and resolving similar cases

c) Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP on the process of selecting, publishing and applying precedents

This resolution clearly outlines the construction and application of precedents in the legal system of Vietnam Accordingly, a precedent is considered the reasoning and judgment of the Supreme People's Court on a specific case To ensure the quality and transparency of the precedent, criteria for selection are specified, including clarifying legal provisions, ensuring standards, and providing uniform legal guidance

Individuals and organizations have the right to propose precedents, providing arguments, judgments, and meeting the specified criteria The precedent is announced, and opinions are sought within 30 days to gather evaluations and feedback from the legal community, experts, and other relevant parties

Most importantly, the Precedent Advisory Council, established under the

chairmanship of the President of the Supreme People's Court Scientific Council, is responsible for discussing and providing formal opinions on the precedent The process of passing through a precedent is carried out through the decision of the Supreme People's Court Council, ensuring transparency and quality in the construction and application of precedents

Subsequent steps include publication, application of the precedent in trials, and the procedure for revoking the precedent when there are changes in the law or when the precedent is no longer suitable This way, the legal system ensures consistency and fairness in the trial process, while enhancing the transparency and credibility

of the legal procedure

3 Challenges in the Current Application of Legal Precedents in Vietnam

Insufficient Number of Precedents: The number of legal precedents in Vietnam

is relatively low, currently standing at 70 published precedents This figure is inadequate compared to the annual number of verdicts and decisions issued by