Capella University Fundamentals of Business Law Case Law Analysis Paper

attachment_2Case Law Analysis

Bryan Nickerson

Bryan Nickerson

Fundamentals of Business Law

Cynthia Geppert

Capella University

BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES

Randy Braswell’s Mississippi business worked as a Sole Proprietor from 1965-1980. His business sells and buys land, timber, gear, and gas and oil interests. In 1980, Randy chose to fuse Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc. In 1981, Braswell framed another company and named it “Overall Purchasing, Inc”. The subsequent enterprise was financed by Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc.

In 1986, a subpoena was issued to Randy Braswell by the government fabulous jury mentioning that he give the record keeping/books of his two partnerships. As indicated by FindLaw(n.d.) Randy “moved to suppress the subpoena, contending that the demonstration of delivering the records would implicate him disregarding his Fifth Amendment benefit against self-implication.”

The District Court did not concur with Randy Braswell and they denied his movement. The court felt that the “aggregate element regulation” (FindLaw n.d.), keeps Randy from having the option to push the way that his corporate records are ensured by the Fifth Amendment.

This case was advanced by Randy Braswell and taken to the U.S. Incomparable court where it was denied too for similar reasons.

Key Judicial Concepts That Influence the Decisions Related to Business

The feeling of the court was conveyed by Chief Justice Rehnquist. He expressed that the case centers on the reality of whether Braswell, the overseer of the subpoenaed business records, can decline to turn over the reports in light of the fact that doing as such would make him implicate himself and abuse his Fifth Amendment rights. It was inferred that paying little mind to the size of an individual’s company, they can’t guarantee the fifth. The archives being mentioned were not esteemed to be special. It was likewise reasoned that if Braswell had worked as a Sole Proprietorship, he would have been allowed the chance to demonstrate that delivering such records would implicate. The courts expressed that partnerships and different business substances are dealt with uniquely in contrast to people (FindLaw n.d.).

Likewise, as indicated by Justina (n.d.) “since the caretaker goes about as the enterprise’s agent, the demonstration of generation is considered one of the partnerships not the individual, and the Government may utilize the “singular demonstration” of creation against the person.”

There were no dissenting opinions and all of the justices were in agreement. There was no business formation taking place in this case as this was about keeping stock that was within a corporation already so I can’t say whether the parties would have been in a better position or not.    Exhibit Information Literacy Skills as Applied to Business Law: First, I must say that I had never looked up a court case until undertaking this assignment. After saying that, I must admit that this ended up being much more interesting than I had thought it would be. I absolutely agree with the higher court’s decision. I for one feel that the law is the law for this situation. Business elements work and are dealt with diversely under the law. I would be interested with respect to what this enterprise needs to stow away. In the event that your business records are subpoenaed give them concerning my conclusion on the judgment. I had already learned what “respondent superior” meant before this assessment, but I did learn some new terms such as “stare decisis”, “charitable immunity doctrine”, and “dissenting opinion”. As for my opinion on the judgment I feel that the circuit court made the correct judgment because Richard Roth did not have a will and he did not have any type of document to actually state what he wanted to actually do with his shares in the corporation.

References

FindLaw (n.d.). Braswell v. United States. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-

court/487/99.html

Justina (n.d.). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/99/