Court Reflection Paper Law Essay Research Coursework

Court Reflection Paper
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Court Reflection Paper
Introduction
The Food & Water Watch, Inc., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. summary judgment took place at the United States District Court, N.D. California. In particular, it was filed on 25th June 2018. The case summary number is 3:17-cv-02162-EMC. The summary judgment took 1 hour, 21 minutes, 57 seconds (United States Courts, 2019). Edward Chen was the presiding judge, Michael Connett was the Food & Water Watch Inc. attorney (plaintiff), and Norman Rave was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attorney (defendant). I watched the case proceedings online using this link: /cameras-courts/food-water-watch-inc-et-al-v-environmental-protection-agency-et-al. The plaintiff had petitioned the EPA to regulate and control fluorine in the drinking water under Section 21. Indeed, he said that the ingestion of this substance poses a health risk of neurotoxicity to humans. However, the EPA denied the petition and filed a suit for a judicial review.
Description of Events
In the Food & Water Watch, Inc., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. case, there appears no major events. In reality, it was like a conversation between the district judge and two attorneys, one for the defendant and the other for the plaintiff. The case starts by lawyers introducing themselves and stating the organizations they represent. Without wasting time, the judge began by summarizing his understanding of the case at hand and gave the plaintiff a chance to justify whether what he said was true or not. In the entire case, the judge wanted to gather more evidence from the plaintiff that the fluoridation of water poses neurotoxicity harm to people. Connett referred to several scenarios to support his argument, but the judge was not fully convinced. One of the most outstanding examples that he gave was involving Julie Sams. Julie Sams suffered daily headaches for over 20 years when she drank fluoridated water. Connett claimed that headache is a classic neurological symptom. However, the judge countered the argument by saying that headache has various causes, such as brain tumor, which are not related to fluoridated water. Connett argued that Julie's headache went away when she did not drink fluoridated water for three weeks (United States Courts, 2019). He said that there was a connection of drinking water with daily headaches despite the lack of any medical test. Overall, the judge interacted with the plaintiff and defendant attorneys to establish whether the allegations made were supported by proper scientific evidence or not. Connett took more time in trying to convince the court that the EPA should regulate fluoridation of water.
Summary of Terminology
Plaintiff – an institution or individua...