Case Western Reserve University School of Law’s Jessup Team won the Midwest regional Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in Chicago. This is the fourth year out of the past five that Case Western Reserve’s team has won the competition.
The law school’s Jessup team, consisting of Cameron McLeod, Elizabeth Sparks, Jory Hoffman and Tyler Talbert, won all four preliminary rounds against DePaul University, Michigan State University, University of Tennessee and University of Iowa. Then, McLeod and Hoffman beat Wayne State University in the quarterfinals and Thomas M. Cooley Law School in the semifinals, and Talbert and Sparks beat University of Michigan in the final round.
In addition, the CWRU team won the third best brief award, and the awards for the best final round oralist (Talbert), third best overall oralist (McLeod) and 10th best overall oralist (Hoffman).
CWRU’s team, which is coached by Professor Michael Scharf and Adjunct Professor Margaux Day, beat out 24 other law schools for the right to represent the United States next at the White & Case International Rounds in Washington, D.C., where they will face winners from 120 other countries and the other five U.S. regional competitions. In 2008, the CWRU team won the Jessup World Championship, and the famed Jessup Cup is on display in the showcase on the first floor of the law school.
This year’s Jessup Problem involved the lawfulness of Predator drone strikes, the legality of a legislative ban on religious head coverings and legal issues relating to an indirect bribe of a foreign official.
Posted by: Emily Mayock, February 16, 2011 07:55 AM | News Topics:
Case Western Reserve University is committed to the free exchange of ideas, reasoned debate and intellectual dialogue. Speakers and scholars with a diversity of opinions and perspectives are invited to the campus to provide the community with important points of view, some of which may be deemed controversial. The views and opinions of those invited to speak on the campus do not necessarily reflect the views of the university administration or any other segment of the university community.