First-Year Ames
The First-Year Ames Moot Court is the capstone of the
1L Legal Research and Writing Program.
About the Competition
Research, writing, and oral advocacy
The First-Year Ames Moot Court serves as the academic focus of the 1L spring semester of Legal Research and Writing (LRW). All first-year J.D. students participate.
Students work in pairs to write briefs on the merits of a hypothetical appellate case. Their Climenko Fellows assign the cases and, together with members of the Board of Student Advisers serving as teaching assistants, guide students through legal research, brief writing, and preparation for oral argument.
Briefs are graded by the Climenko Fellows. Students do not receive a formal grade for oral argument, but each pair receives feedback from a judging panel of faculty, practicing attorneys, and upper-level students.
Case Descriptions
Concerned Citizens of Cairo v. Raiders presents several appellate issues stemming from an international dispute over the spoils of an expedition conducted by Kentucky Jones and his company, Raiders and Associates. Concerned Citizens of Cairo (CCC) seeks the assistance of a federal court in the United States to aid its efforts in a court in England: under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, CCC has requested discovery of documents held by Raiders and Associates, though those documents are available only in hard copy in Brazil. Raiders contends that the District Court for the District of Massachusetts lacks jurisdiction to compel discovery from it. The district court split the two central questions, finding that it had jurisdiction but that the statute could not reach documents located abroad. On appeal, CCC asks the First Circuit to find jurisdiction over Raiders and to permit discovery of the Brazilian documents.
Sanchez v. MacNamara Veterinary Specialists arises from June Sanchez’s employment as a veterinarian at MacNamara Veterinary Specialists. After eight years, Sanchez resigned and opened her own practice in Syracuse. MacNamara brought a contract suit, alleging that the practice violated a restrictive covenant in Sanchez’s employment contract limiting her ability to practice in New York after leaving the hospital. Sanchez responded that the covenant was unenforceable and counterclaimed that the hospital had retaliated against her for reporting a colleague’s dangerous conduct, constructively discharging her in breach of the contract. The trial court granted MacNamara summary judgment, and the New York Court of Appeals granted review of two questions: whether the noncompete is enforceable, and whether Sanchez adequately pleaded a cause of action for breach of her employment contract.
The Board of Student Advisers maintains a collection of resources to support 1L students as they prepare their Ames briefs and oral arguments.
Visit the 1L Resource Library →Questions about First-Year Ames may be directed to the Ames Committee at [email protected]
or the LRW Committee at [email protected].