The Moot Court program at Memphis Law has a long and distinguished history of success.  The program continues to grow and succeed, as each year many teams advance to nationals, and our intraschool competitions are more popular by the semester.

Past Champions:

• Intercollegiate Competitions
• Intraschool Advanced Moot Court
• Intraschool Freshman Moot Court
• Intraschool Mock Trial

Intercollegiate Competitions

ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition
2011 National Top Sixteen
Regional Champions - 2010, 2011
National Second Place - 2008
National Best Advocate - 2008
Regional Champion - 2006, 2008
National Ninth Place - 2006
Regional Finalist - 2007
Regional Semifinalist - 2005

National Moot Court Competition
Region VII Best Brief - 2010
Regional Finalist - 2008
National Second Place - 2006
Best Oral Advocate Final Round - 2006
Regional Finalist - 2005
Best Brief, Region VII - 2001
National Quarterfinalist - 1999, 1993

National Environmental Moot Court
National Finalist - 2007
Quarterfinalist - 2006
National Semifinalist - 2005, 2004
National Quarterfinalist - 2002
National Semifinalist - 2000
National Finalist - 1997

Frederick Douglass Moot Court Competition
Regional First Place - 2010, National Second Place - 2010
National Third Place - 2007
Regional Third Place - 2007
Regional Best Oral Advocate - 2001

Duberstein Bankruptcy Moot Court Team
National Semi-Finalist 2011; Honorable Mention Best Brief 2011
National Fifth Place - 2010

Robert F. Wagner, Sr., National Labor Law Competition
Second Place Respondent Brief - 2005
National Semifinalist - 2003
Best Petitioner Brief - 2003
National Quarterfinalist - 2000
National Champion - 1996, 1994, 1993

National Mock Trial Competition
National Quarterfinalist - 2001, 1993-1994
Region IV Champions - 2001, 1993-1998

ATLA National Mock Trial Competition
First Place Region - 1996

Thurgood Marshall Mock Trial Competition
Regional Finalist 2010-2011; National Champions 2010-2011
Regional Second Place - 2010

National Institute of Trial Advocacy NITA Tournament of Champions
Semifinalist - 1995
Invited - 1998, 1994

National Student Trial Advocacy Competition
Regional Champion - 1997, 1994

Intraschool Advanced Moot Court

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2011: Winners: Ryan Hagenbrok and Katie Parrish

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2010:  Winners:  Megan Fuller and Joanna Waddell
This problem asked students to deal with issues of employment law, administrative law, and civil procedure.  A foreign college student obtained work with the religious university he attended.  After his student visa expired, he continued the job illegally.  The school later terminated him, shortly following his diagnosis with multiple sclerosis.  Student competitors argued two legal issues.  The first concerned the appropriate procedural standard for the school's motion to dismiss the lawsuit under the ministerial exception.  The second asked whether, as an illegal immigrant, the plaintiff was entitled to damages under the ADA.

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2009:  Winners:  Emily Blaiss and Tracy Bradshaw

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2008:  Winners:  Shea Barker and Jonathan Bettis
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest to allow a search conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested? Does the Ex Post Facto Clause prohibit the prosecution of a defendant for a failure to resister offense under U.S.C. § 2250 that occurred after SORNA's enactment, but before the announcement of the Attorney General's Interim Rule, when the conviction giving rise to the defendant's registration requirement occurred prior to July 27, 2006?

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2007:  Winners:  Josh Sudbury and George Norton
Whether the Fifth Amendment requires the suppression of incriminating statements made during a custodial interrogation when officers do not clearly convey that the suspect has the right to the presence of an attorney during interrogation? Whether a supervised release condition requiring a defendant to wear a sandwich board and distribute flyers, both containing a description of his conduct, violates the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)?

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2006:  Winners:  Jennifer Bellott and Adam Johnson
Whether a tip from an anonymous informant is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop when the authorities do not observe any illegal conduct. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a traffic stop.

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2005: Winners: Jennifer Jackson and Jeweline Franklin
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, must a complaint which states multiple claims, some of which have not been administratively exhausted, be dismissed in its entirety? Does a state prison regulation prohibiting minimum security prisoners from possessing material containing nudity or sexual content violate the First Amendment?

Past Champions List

• 2010 Megan Fuller and Joanna Waddell
• 2009 Tracy Bradshaw and Emily Blaiss
• 2008 Shea Barker and Jonathan Bettis
• 2007 George “DJ” Norton and Joshua Sudbury 
• 2006 Jennifer Belloit and Adam Johnson  
• 2005 Jeweline Franklin and Jennifer Jackson
• 2004 Vickie Moffett and Amy Worrell
• 2003 Alissa York and Rachel Bryant
• 2002 Steven Meisner and Gregory Pease
• 2001 Alex Boals and Jon York
• 2000 Patricia Givens and Jennifer Miller
• 1999 Jennifer Eberle and Byran Hoss
• 1998 Amy Campbell and Licia Williams
• 1997 Kim Fields and Jill Taylor  
• 1996 Scott Hall and Eric Thornton   

Archives

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2004: Winners: Vickie Moffett and Amy Worrell
Whether a tip from an anonymous informant is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop when the authorities do not observe any illegal conduct.

Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a traffic stop.

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2003: Winners: Alissa York and Rachel Bryant
Whether a law approving and funding a Choose Life license plate violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Whether a law approving and funding a Choose Life license plate violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2002: Winners: Steven Meisner and Gregory Pease
Whether a teacher in the public school system has a First Amendment right to speak in the classroom and, if so, which analysis determines the limits of that right. Whether a plaintiff who alleges that he suffered adverse consequences for exercising his right to speak may state an equal protection claim alleging that he was treated differently from similarly-situated employees.

Advanced Moot Court Competition 2001: Winners: Alex Boals and Jon York
Whether a consent to search clause, as part of a probation agreement extends to searches conducted for investigatory purposes by law enforcement officers. Whether U.S.C. § 2256 (8) unconstitutionally prohibits protected speech and is void for vagueness.

Intraschool Freshman Moot Court

Freshman Moot Court Competition 2010  Winners:  Brigid Welsh and Brooke Stevens
The Freshman Moot Court problem asked students to deal with First Amendment issues in the context of student speech at school. A student wrote an article for the school newspaper advocating the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The school principal pulled this students article from the school paper but allowed the opposing view’s article to run in the school paper. The principal suspended the student for wearing a t-shirt advocating the same proposition. The two issues were: (1) Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to regulate student speech in a non-viewpoint neutral manner?, and (2) Whether content and viewpoint neutral regulations of student speech are governed by the standard set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)?

Archives

Freshman Moot Court Competition 2004: Whether a trial court must give actual notice to the parties before treating a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a motion for summary judgment. Whether, in the case of HIV infection, a showing of some theoretically sound possibility of transmission, however small, is sufficient to establish significant risk for purposes of the direct-threat defense under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Freshman Moot Court Competition 2003: Whether the exchange of narcotics for a gun constitutes a "use" of a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C§924(c)? Whether the possession of a single firearm during the commission of two or more "simultaneous" predicate offenses can support multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C§ 924(c)?

Freshman Moot Court Competition 2002: Whether the appropriate determination of "otherwise extensive activity" under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 is the number of participants involved in the scheme or a totality of the circumstances test? Whether the term "vexatious" in the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L.No. 105-119, reprinted in 18 U.S.C. 3006A (statutory note) requires an element of maliciousness?

Intraschool Mock Trial

• 2011 Daniel Cossey and Sarah Spitzer
• 2010 Shea Barker and Bridgett Warner
• 2009 Kevin Griffith and Aizaz Tareen
• 2008 George “DJ” Norton and Charles Molder
• 2007 Betsy Weintraub and Todd Richardson
• 2006 Frank Day and Chuck Holliday
• 2005 Lindsay Cole and Alice Farr
• 2004 Jennifer Case and Kelley Thomas
• 2003 Kathy Baker and Emily Bjorkman
• 2002 Jason Lee and Jessica Graham
• 2001 Michael Byers and Barry McWhirter
• 2000 Jennifer Eberle and Bryan Hoss
• 1999 Leslie Boyd and Bill Eledge
• 1998 Chad Boudreaux and Brian Faughnan
• 1997 Charles Wesley Fowler and Chris McDowell