Read Chapters 1-2 of the Tiefer/Shook textbook
Read Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond Case from text at pp. 13-19
Read Appeal of University of California, San Francisco from text at pp. 688-693
Review Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm (Links to an external site.)
Scan relevant Reference Sources and Internet Websites listed under Course Resources for outside reading material concerning Government Procurement LawComplete case briefs for two assigned cases:
Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner v. Charles Richmond Case from text at pp. 13-19;
Appeal of University of California, San Francisco from text at pp. 688-693
Submit a written "Case Brief" for both of the above cases. Providing a "Case Brief" will improve your critical legal thinking and writing skills and help you gain a better understanding of the Court's decision and the underlying law affecting an area of government procurement.
The format for your written "Case Brief" consists for five parts:
Case name and citation
Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court
Holding of the Court
Court's Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision
Take a look at the following link for additional guidance on how to write a written case brief: http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Links to an external site.). You are not required to complete steps 6 or 7 discussed at the above web site.
Your challenge will be to condense the material in your text yet at the same time ensure that you sufficiently cover the 5 parts noted above.
You are required to write your answers with Microsoft Word (Times New Roman, 12 pt) and include your names on all pages for grading purposes.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 5:28 am ad1c9bdddf
Case name and citation
Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond
496 US 414 (1990)
The facts of the case were that prior to 1982, individuals were ineligible for disability benefits under certain criteria, which included earning a minimum of 80% of their current pay for the two succeeding calendar years for the current position that the individual occupied prior to their retirement, and the petitioner in this case, Charles Richmond was provided the requirements for 1982 instead of the amended version that made individuals ineligible in any succeeding calendar year. Richmond applied for disability retirement in 1981, and was approved by the Office of Personnel Management, which he received throughout the next four years. After the law was amended in 1982, Richmond continued to meet the new requirements wherein he remained eligible for retirement benefits because he only worked part time, which kept his earnings low enough to remain eligible for the benefits under the newly amended guidelines.
When Richmond was offered the opportunity to increase his pay, he sought advice from the Office of Personnel Management on whether he would remain eligible for retirement disability payments ...
The Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner versus Charles Richmond Case is examined.