2019 Competition Questions


QUESTION: After reviewing the rules, one of my teammates noticed on page 4 Article 6 that in order to be considered for an award, one must argue a minimum of 3 times the first day. Our question is how does this work if our team has 3 members and one member will of course not be able to argue the 3 times? Are they ineligible to receive consideration for the award?

ANSWER:  Article 6 Paragraph 8 states:  A team member must argue at least two preliminary rounds to be eligible for an oralist award. Individual awards are based on arguing a minimum of two rounds. The teams will argue 3 rounds except for the highest scoring team. That team will receive a bye into the elimination round. If a member failed to argue twice for that team, they personally would not be eligible for an oralist award.


QUESTION: I was curious how the power protection based on brief scores work. Could you give me a better description of how that works and how the scores are factored in? 

ANSWER:  We calculate all brief scores and every brief is scored by 3 independent judges. Judges are provided no information and only see team numbers on the briefs received. Teams are ranked by brief scores from highest to lowest for pairings in the first two rounds. Those rankings are released after the competition, though on Friday evening awards are given to the First, Second and Third Place Briefs. Article Five of the rules addresses this issue and explains it in more detail and also addresses round 3 and what goes into that calculation. 


QUESTION: How does the bye-round work when you have an uneven number of teams?

ANSWER:  We will be relying on:

Article Five — Organization of the Competition-Preliminary Rounds – Day One-Paragraph 2

A bye round will be necessary if an odd number of teams compete. CULS will select two teams at random to receive byes in one of the first two rounds. These teams will be paired against each other and will argue at a time designated by CULS. Teams may be required to argue immediately before or after the bye round. In addition, the highest seeded team at the beginning of Round 3 will receive the bye for that round and will automatically be the top seed in Round 4.

A bye round will be used and will be held at 8:00 AM -9:30 AM, prior to registration. The teams selected will need to be prepared to argue in the bye round at that time. We have not yet determined the teams this will involve. We will do so as soon as possible. Keep in mind that due to this issue, one team will receive a bye in the third round based on scoring in the preliminary rounds and will automatically advance to the elimination round on Saturday and be the top seeded team as stated above in the rules. We hope that this minor alteration will make for an exciting addition to the competition.


QUESTION: Are guests and spectators able to attend the comepition?


  • The Statehouse has security measures.  No backpacks are permitted in the Statehouse.  All visitors will be screened, to include metal detectors and bag searches. Purses, computer satchels, etc. are OK but will be checked.
  • Sixteen teams will advance to Saturday’s single elimination rounds at the Supreme Court of Ohio.  For security purposes, we must provide the Court in advance with a list of all individuals seeking admission.  Please provide to me the names of any and all individuals including team members, coaches and guests(spectators) I should include on the guest list for your school.
  • Please provide me with your travel plans (driving/flying; when arriving; which hotel) and a cell phone number in case we need to contact you for some reason during your trip.
  • If you need to get in touch with me after work hours on Thursday or any time Friday or Saturday during event week, I will have my phone with me at all times.  My cell phone number is 740-359-8652.



In the Capitania Statutes, 22.220.44(6) states:
"(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2)(a) and (3)(d) of this section and Section 22-220.22 Recreational Usage of Marijuana, no patient under eighteen years of age shall engage in the medical use of marijuana unless..."

However, there is no section (3)(d) in the statute.  Can you please let us know how you would like us to address this in our oral arguments?

ANSWER:  In order to rectify the likely typographical error in Capitania Statutes, 22.220.44(6) It should be noted that the corrected statute shall read:

(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section…..


QUESTION: The problem asks competitors to apply federal law. Are competitors to assume, in scenarios like this, the Capitania abuse of discretion standard is identical to the federal abuse of discretion standard?

ANSWER: Yes, you may assume the same abuse of discretion standard as federal.


QUESTION: 33-400.5(B) states an abused child includes a child who "is endangered as defined in the Revised Code." The trial court found the minor to be abused under §33-400.5(B), but the statutory definition for "endangered" was not provided. Does §2919.22 of the Ohio Code provide the relevant definition of "endangered"?

ANSWER: It should be that the child was found abused. Should there be a need to define endangered, you may choose to look at Ohio code or another state’s code to make arguments for or against the proposition you are advocating for. Since this case does not involve any criminal aspects and rather merely the finding of abuse you may or may not see the need to expound on that aspect.


QUESTION: Should speaker 1 assume procedural due process for a temporary custody order requires clear and convincing evidence, and, if not, what are the appeals procedures/remedies available to the parents?

ANSWER: Yes you should assume clear and convincing evidence standard. The remedy available to the parents is the appeal that they filed to contest the court’s findings and raise any constitutional or procedural arguments that their attorneys find applicable to raise. That is the openness of the question.


QUESTION: In the Opinion and Order on page 8, it says that there is evidence that K.F.'s grades and behavior have improved since March 2016. Shouldn't that say May 2016? Earlier in the packet, it says that the parents started the medical marijuana treatments on May 23, 2016.

ANSWER: To remain consistent, I would agree that it should be May 2016 and not March 2016 on Page 8. The sentence should read: There was evidence that his grades and behavior have all improved since May 2016.


QUESTION: Can you please tell me when the Rules were posted? 

ANSWER: The rules were posted on the moot court website in July 2018.


QUESTION: Do our competitors write for Petitioner or Respondent?

ANSWER:  The rules for the competition lay this out. I have cut and pasted from the Rules. This topic is covered in Article Seven-Briefs-Paragraph 1 found on page(s) 4/5.  If you are competing as an individual team you may write a brief on either side. If there are two teams from the same school, there must be a brief for each side completed. Hope this helps. I have included our tech person in this email. She typically posts any questions and answers for posting to the website. I would ask that she does so with this question and answer to help all teams that may have a similar question.

Article Seven Briefs

  1. A team may choose to write its brief on behalf of the Petitioner or Respondent.  If two teams from the same school enter the competition, one team must submit a Petitioner’s Brief and one team must submit a Respondent’s Brief.


If you have any questions or need further explanation, please contact us at mootcourt@law.capital.edu.