Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support our team by signing up to judge a practice argument!

 

Spring 2018 Competition Teams will start having practices January 2018.

Upcoming Practices

DATE AND TIME TEAM ROOM JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Thu. January 18
8:30AM - 9:30AM Lefkowitz - Respodent Room F Jordan Olson Pres-Elect Harold Saxon
12:00PM - 1:00PM Lefkowitz - Petitioner Room E Maddy LS Brittany Fiona Adrienne Subido Miranda Rowley
1:00PM - 2:00PM 3L Nationals Tower 404 Fiona Michael Raimondi Nicole Wise Carson Riley
2:00PM - 3:00PM 3L Nationals Tower 404 Gabbi Madeline Landry Sarah Madan Carson Riley
6:00PM - 8:00PM Tulane C

See all 95 upcoming practices

Teams

Naomi Strauss, Jonathan Klaren, and John Darin

Petitioners are appealing the 14th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to reverse the trial court’s judgments as matter of law in favor of the government.  Petitioners are instead asking the United States Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and hold that: 1) § 1983 claims of retaliatory arrest require plaintiffs to plead the absence of probable cause; and 2) unauthorized drivers of rental cars are third parties who lack standing to challenge vehicle searches.

The Certified Questions are as follows:

  1. Whether an arrest made in retaliation for a plaintiff’s exercise of protected speech violates the First Amendment where the arrest is supported by probable cause.
  2. Whether a driver not party to a rental agreement has standing to challenge an unreasonable search of the rental vehicle under the Fourth Amendment.

Last practice January 23.

View schedule

Francesca Reifer, Eric Schmoll, and Alex Andorfer

The first issue is about whether an NHL player's claims under a Minnesota state law—challenging his suspension under a collectively bargained for drug policy—are preempted by federal law (LMRA). The second focuses on whether an arbitration award sanctioning the NHL for its refusal to issue specific product warnings regarding banned substances should be set aside as a violation of public policy. 

 

Last practice February 4.

View schedule

Noura Elfarra, Sonya Patel, Matthew Tratos

Hollywood Hops, a Southern California organic brewery founded by former child star Dustin Diamond, appeals a lower court decision denying an injunction on trademark grounds of use of the name Hollywood & Vine by a Southern California winery. 

The issues are these:

1) Whether Hollywood Hops is distinctive enough to qualify as a trademark;

2) Whether Mr. Diaomond acquiesced to Hollywood & Vine's use of the name, thereby providing Hollywood & Vine with an affirmative defense; and whether consumers are likely to confuse (likelihood of confusion) the names of the two companies.

Last practice February 9.

View schedule

Monika Darwish, Eisha Perry, Swetha Gopalakrishnan

Hollywood Hops, a Southern Utopia organic brewery founded by former child star Dustin Diamond, appeals a lower court decision denying an injunction on trademark grounds of use of the name Hollywood & Vine by a Southern California winery. 

The issues are these:

1) Whether Hollywood Hops is distinctive enough to qualify as a trademark and whether consumers are likely to confuse (likelihood of confusion) the names of the two companies.

2) Whether Mr. Diamond acquiesced to Hollywood & Vine's use of the name, thereby providing Hollywood & Vine with an affirmative defense.

Last practice February 7.

View schedule

Catherine Kennedy and Andrea Swanson

Petitioner Millicent Pepper, a native and citizen of the Coco Republic who was admitted to the United States on an F-1 student visa, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit holding that Petitioner was lawfully subjected to administrative removal proceedings having committed an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA").

On certiorari, the parties are directed argue the following questions:

(1) Whether a federal appellate court has jurisdiction over a petition for review of a final order of removal when the basis for removal is an alien's conviction of an aggravated felony and the alien did not raise a challenge to such basis for removal during her administrative removal proceedings.

(2) Whether a conviction for criminal sale of marijuana in the third degree per E.V.P.L. section 331.45 categorically fits the definition of "aggravated felony" under the Controlled Substances Act.

Last practice January 30.

View schedule

Carson Riley, Tanya Sanderson, Rachel Steyer, Nolan Theurer & Tammy Su

1. Whether the arbitral award of 2 March 2017 is valid;

2. Whether there was a violation of Article 6 of the FCN Treaty when the Egart operated in Anduchenca's territorial sea, and whether Adduchenca violated Article 7 of the FCN Treaty when it caputred the Egart;

3. Whether Anduchenca violated Article 16 of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation by commissioning and operating the Ibra;

4. Whether Rukaruku violated Article 17 of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation when it attacked the Covfefe and captured the Ibra.

Last practice February 20.

View schedule

Contact team scheduling contacts for questions or changes in judging practices.
Contact Iain Cunningham at iain@hastingsmootcourt.com for questions or comments about this web page.