BUS 215 Final Exam, Yvette Jolly

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc. (MCQ and Short Answer)

Facts: Boat Explosion

Issue: Jurisdiction

Rule: Personal Jurisdiction

Analysis: Found both to be Virgin Islanders

Conclusion: The court found that bot parties were deemed Virgin Islanders- No Jurisdiction

Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang Huoqing (MCQ only)

JDX

Espresso Diposition Corp v. Santana Sales & Marketing Group, Inc. (MCQ and Short Answer)

Facts:

Issue: Venue proper in Florida or Illinois?

Rule: Venue- where injury occurred, where witness is located, where police report was taken, where contract was was written or where breach of contract occurred, convenience/bias/discrimination

Analysis: The parties contract called for venue to be in Illinois

Conclusion: Venue proper for Illinois

Blankenship v. Collier (MCQ only)

Summary Judgement

Lhokta v. Geographic Expeditions (MCQ and Short Answer)

Facts: Mother and Son climbed Kilimanjaro and the son died of altitude related illnesses

Issue: Whether the agreement to arbitrate is unconscionable and, therefore unenforceable

Rule: Where one signs an arbitration agreement knowingly and willfully the arbitration agreement will be deemed valid unless the agreement is deemed unconscionable (unconscionable means it is so heavily in favor towards one side)

Analysis: 1.) The waiver and release of liability form 2.) Venue- San Francisco (clients are from Colorado) 3.) Recovery under any claim limited to the purchase price of the trip ($8000 per person)

Conclusion: The court affirmed the lower courts order denying GeoEx's motion to compel arbitration

Johnson v. Shaffer (MCQ)

Facts: Dirty mechanic case

Issue: Johnson took rs truck to Shaffer for repairs and had to return numerous times because each time there was aew problem with the truck and Shaffer kept charging him for each new issue that wasn't fixed the time prior.

Rule: The court did not believe Mr. Johnson was informed of the cost for the additional work

Analysis: The court viewed Shaffers testimony on the issue as disingenuous.

Conclusion: The court sided with the plaintiff Johnson since the evidence showed that Johnson was quoted $1000 for original repairs and was not made aware of costs for additional repairs made by the mechanic.

State of Minnesota v. Smith (MCQ)

Facts: Burglary case

Issue: Whether there was enough evidence to show smith committed the burglaries.

Rule:

common law- breaking and entering into a dwelling at night

modern law- breaking into a structure and stealing property

Analysis: Smith's presence and possession of the stolen items from the Sept. 3rd burglary by way of mali and a dumpster can only be proved through rational hypothesis that smith conducted the burglaries.

Conclusion: Appeals court affirmed the lower courts conviction for burglary

People v. Sisuphan (MCQ and Short Answer)

Facts: Car salesman stole and then returned money

Issue: Embezzlement

Rule: the trespassory taking and asportation of the personal property of another while in lawful custody

Analysis: The exclusion of the evidence that the defendant returned the money is irrelevant because the return of the money is not a defense to embezzlement

Conclusion: Appeals court affirmed trial courts decision. The fact that he returned the money is irrelevant and he was guilty of embezzlement.

Messerschmidt v. Millender (MCQ)

Facts:

Issue: unlawful search and seizure- are police officers entitled to qualified immunity from suit when obtaining a warrant to search for firearms or gang related items

Rule: 4th amendment protects people from unlawful searches and seizures by the government.

Analysis:

Conclusion: the court sided with the police

Miranda v. Arizona (MCQ and Short Answer)

Facts:

Issue: Miranda was convicted following an interrogation by police without being informed of his 5th amendment rights

Rule: A person must be made aware of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney during an arrest

Analysis:

Conclusion: an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th amendment

Queen v. Dudley and Stephens "The life boat" (MCQ)

Facts: The lifeboat case involving cannibalism

Issue: Whether Dudley and Stephens may use necessity to excuse them of the crime of murder. Is the necessity a valid defense for murder?

Rule: a man who out of necessity eats the flesh of another man for survival is guilty of murder.

Analysis: Despite doing what they thought they had to in order to survive they were still guilty of murder

Conclusion: They were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death

Roach v. Stern (MCQ and Short Answer)

Facts: Playing with the remains of a human on a radio show

Issue: Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Rule: Extreme and outrageous conduct calculated to cause and causes severe emotional distress

Analysis: Conduct by Stern and co- defendants showed enough evidence that the defendants were "extreme and outrageous" in their conduct mishandling Tay's remains

Conclusion: Appeals court found in favor of Roach, appeals court reversed the lower courts ruling.

Katko v. Briney (MCQ)

Facts: Spring gun case

Issue: Can an owner defend his or her property with means of deadly force

Rule: only reasonable non-deadly force can be used to defend your property

Analysis: By setting up a spring gun trap the defendant Briney went outside of his rights in order to defend his property.

Conclusion: Court ruled you can never use deadly force to defend your property

Codes

a grouping of related statutes

examples:

penal code (codes related to crimes)

Common Law

rules of law developed by forefathers brought over from England, more strict v. Modern law is less specific

Modern law

rules of law that have changed since society has changed , more broad/covers more crimes.

Stare Decisis

a latin term meaning: the rule of law is that the lower courts must adhere to the higher courts rule of law/lower courts must abide by the ruling of the higher courts.

Case Precedents

sets the tone/ establishes the rule of law

Plaintiff

a person who brings a case against another in a court of law.

Defendant

an individual or group being sued or charged with a crime

Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a case

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

the power of a court to hear a particular type of case

Personal Jurisdiction

1. Federal Question= breaches or violations of constitutional privileges

2. Diversity of citizenship

a. parties must reside or be incorporated in different states

b. must meet the amount in controversy

Petitioner

same as the plaintiff

Respondent

same as the defendant

Equitable and legal remedies

all about compensation and money

punitive damages: finds a punishment for damages

legal remedies: money $$$

Equitable remedies: injunctive relief (restraining orders)

-specific performance (must have uniqueness and must be a good: any tangible personal property capable of being moved)

if something is affixed to the ground it is not a good, it is Real property

Venue

Where is the best location for the lawsuit/case to be heard

- where did the incident occur

- where did the breach of contract occur

- Where are the majority of witnesses

- Where the evidence is found

- if there is a potential for bias the case may be moved (like the OJ case)

Standing to sue

the requirement that plaintiffs have a serious interest in a case, which depends on whether they have sustained or are likely to sustain a direct and substantial injury from a party or an action of government ( cannot sue for someone else's injury only your own)

Writ of Certiorari

A means to have your case heard before the United States supreme court

-rule of 4: the court will not issue the writ unless 5 of the 9 justices approve it.

Service of process

formally notifying the defendant of a lawsuit (you've been served)

-subpoenas are also a type of service of process notifying someone that they must testify in court

Charges

Criminal proceeding

-Burden of proof-Beyond a reasonable doubt

Causes of Actions

Civil proceeding

-Burden of proof-Clear and convincing of the evidence or a preponderance of the evidence

Jury Selection

each party has an unlimited number of challenges for cause and a limited number of peremptory challenges (they get 3)

Voir Dire Process

The jury selection process

Trial Process

1. Bench (judge) or jury trial: criminal defendant gets to choose between bench or jury trial (6th amendment right)

2. jury selection

3. Opening statement: plaintiff first then defense

4. Direct and cross exams: plaintiff direct -> defense cross -> Defense direct -> Plaintiff cross

Leading Questions: only during cross examination

5. Closing arguments

6. Jury instructions

7. Verdict

8. Motion for a new trial

9. Appellate review

Burden of proof- criminal/civil

Beyond a reasonable doubt; preponderance of the evidence

Opening/closing arguments

Opening-can not argue your case, can only give facts

Closing- arguments state and argue your case

Direct and cross exam

Direct- can only ask questions to explain a scene

Cross- Opposing council can ask leading questions

Jury instructions

judge gives the jury the particular rules of law that apply to the case

Jury verdict

a decision made by a jury

Motion for new trial

A motion asserting that the trial was so fundamentally flawed (because of error, newly discovered evidence, prejudice, or another reason) that a new trial is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Appellate Review

review of the results of a trial by a higher court

Alternative Dispute (Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration)

Negotiation: both parties either on their own or with an attorney come to some mutual agreement

Mediation: rule where a neutral 3rd party helps to facilitate an agreement between the parties

Arbitration: rule where one signs an arbitration agreement knowingly and willfully the arbitration agreement will be deemed valid unless the agreement in unconscionable

Mens Rea/Actus Rea

Guilty Mind, Guilty Act (both required to be a criminal offense)

Common Law Crimes (MRBARK)

Murder

Rape

Burglary

Arson

Robbery

Kidnapping

Felonies v. Misdemeanors

• Felonies are serious crimes punishable by death or imprisonment of more than a year

• Misdemeanors are less serious crimes punishable by fine or imprisonment for less than a year

burglary

entering a building unlawfully with intent to commit a felony or to steal valuable property

Larceny

maiThe trespassory taking and asportation of the personal property of another

arson

Common law: Malicious burning of the dwelling house of another

Modern law: Malicious burning of any structure

- has to be burning (charring/near blackening is not enough)- must be destruction of property

Receiving Stolen Goods

Knew or should have known that the property was stolen

Forgery

The modification or alteration of a legal document

Fraud

The intentional misrepresentation of fact known to be false by the wrongdoer for purposes of inducing action or inaction and, in fact induces the action or inaction desired.

Embezzlement

The trespassory taking and asportation of the personal property of another while in lawful custody or possession

Bribery

Enticing a government official to do something they would not otherwise do.

Defenses to Crimes

Self defense, defense of others, defense of property, duress, insanity, intoxication, consent, infancy, necessity

Self Defense

One may use both deadly or non-deadly force to defend themself where the same amount of force is being used against them.

Defense of others

May use deadly/non-deadly force to defend another where the same amount of force is being used against the other.

Defense of property

One may use non-deadly force to defend his/her property (katko v. briney)

Duress

One may use the defense of being under duress for everything except murder

Insanity

1. M'Naghten rule: defendant didn't know the difference between right and wrong

2. Irresistible impulse rule: heat of passion (couldn't resist)

3. Model penal code: State by state, look to the state the crime was committed.

Intoxication

voluntary intoxication: no valid defense

involuntary intoxication: valid defense ( also try and argue insanity)

Consent

Express consent: verbal or in writing

Implied consent: from past repeated behavior

Infancy

0-7 presumption of innocence

7-14 rebuttal presumption of innocence

14+ guilty of the crime

1st Amendment

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

4th Amendment

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures

5th Amendment

The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due process

6th Amendment

The right to a Speedy Trial by jury, representation by an attorney for an accused person

8th Amendment

No cruel or unusual punishment, no excessive bail

14th Amendment

Declares that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens and are guaranteed equal protection of the laws

Intentional Torts

assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Defenses to intentional torts

1. Consent

2. Self Defense

3. Defense of Others

4. Defense of Property

5. Necessity

6. shopkeepers privilege (temporarily detain suspected shoplifters)

Assault

The intentional placing one in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive touching to plaintiff or plaintiff's person

Battery

the intentional harmful or offensive touching to plaintiff or plaintiff's person

False Imprisonment

the intentional confinement of a person without reasonable means of ingress (the act of going in) or egress (the act of going out).

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Extreme and outrageous conduct calculated to cause and causes severe emotional distress

Conversion

dominion and control of the personal property of another

Trespass to land

the intentional entry onto the land of another without consent or privilege

Trespass to chattels

the intentional taking of the personal property of another without consent

Blake v. Giustibelli (BOTH)

Client slanders attorney and attorney sues for defamation because the attorney did everything right and was not at fault for losing the case.

Revell v. Guido (MCQ)

Issue: Fraud- whether the defendant is liable for the cause of action for fraud

Rule: misrepresentation of fact known to be false by the wrongdoer for purposes of inducing action or inaction and in fact induces the desired action or inaction

Analysis:

Conclusion: Water tank was old homeowners won valid cause of action for fraud.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (Both)

Issue: Does the plaintiff have a valid cause of action for negligence against the Long Island RR? Was the injury a result of foreseeable cause by the Long Island RR?

Rule: The injury must be a foreseeable/direct result of the breach of duty owed

Analysis: Package was not marked it was an unforeseeable event

Conclusion: Found in favor of RR. No valid cause of action for negligence.

McKee v. Laurion (MCQ)

Doctor treats patient poorly, family rates Doctor poorly. Doctor sues for defamation but fails (truth defense).

Taylor v. Baseball Club (Both)

Facts: Fan gets hit by fly ball face gets messed up

Issue: Assumption of risk? Does defendant have valid defense under assumption of risk?

Rule: Where one volitionally assumes risk involved

Analysis: Avid sports fan, knew the risks of sitting behind home plate at baseball game

Conclusion: Found in favor of BB club- Taylor knew the risks

Wilson v. Hickcox (Both)

Fact: Defect in design of umpire mask

Issue: product liability design defect?

Rule: a defective product has been placed in the stream of commerce causing damages, user, consumer and/or bystander may bring forth a lawsuit against the seller/manufacturer.

Analysis: The good (mask) had a clear design defect and didn't meet expectations of usual umpire masks on the market.

Conclusion: Found there was a defect in the design of the face mask

Lucy v. Zehmer (Both)

Fact: (Ferguson Farm case) Contract is agreed upon on a cocktail napkin and then the y drank after making the agreement. Next day the selling party does not hold up his side of the deal and argues intoxication.

Issue: Valid contract? Intent or intoxication

Rule: Have to be of sound mind to make a contract

Analysis: Both parties were of sound mind at the time the contract was agreed upon

Conclusion: Valid contract, both parties were of sound mind

Krell v. Henry (Both)

Facts: Kings coronation case

Issue: Frustration of purpose

Rule: Underlying terms of the contract have somehow been frustrated and both parties are aware

Analysis: Both parties knew of the intended purpose of the contract but it was frustrated by kings illness

Conclusion: Court found frustration of purpose to be valid and the contract was voided out.

Hamer v. Sidway (MCQ)

Issue: Whether giving up legal rights constitutes valid consideration.

Rule: Forbearance of a legal right is sufficient consideration.

Application: The nephew refrained from smoking and drinking as requested.

Conclusion: The promise was enforceable.

Jacobs and Youngs v. Kent (MCQ)

Facts: (Redding piping case) The replacement pipes were the same if not better and the court determined that the Jacobs and Youngs fulfilled the contract substantially despite the breach (almost fully performed).

Issue: Substantial performance

Raffles v. Wichelhaus (MCQ)

Issue: Whether a mutual misunderstanding about the ship "Peerless" prevented contract formation. Rule: A contract is void when both parties are mistaken about a material term.

Application: Each party meant a different ship named "Peerless."

Conclusion: No contract existed.

Negligence

(4 elements)

1. Duty

General Rule: to act as a reasonable prudent person under same or similar instances

Specialized Duty Rules for:

Professionals (within the community)/ Specialists (within the nation)

Landlord/tenant (warn and make safe the known dangerous instrumentalities)

Doctor/patient (must act as a fiduciary and hold confidences)

Parent/child (must provide and not neglect)

2. Breach

A failure to act when there is a duty to act

3. Causation

in order to meet causation it must be a foreseeable cause (Palsgraf v. Long Island RR)

4. Damages

have to show that you've been injured or that damages were incurred in order to satisfy the lawsuit (need proof ex: medical records, expert testimony)

Defenses to Negligence

1. assumption of risk: where one volitionally undertakes/assumes the risk involved

2. contributory negligence: Where the plaintiff contributes to his/her own negligence in some jurisdictions this is a valid defense. Plaintiff is at fault at any level this is an absolute legal defense (recognized in a minority of jurisdictions)

3. comparative negligence: comparing the negligence of both parties and apportioning the damages (if the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault then the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages.

Defamation

the false defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff communicated to a 3rd party

Slander

a non-permanent form of defamation (spoken)

Libel

A permanent form of defamation (recorded, in writing)

Defenses to Defamation

- Truth

- Consent

- Privilege

Strict Liability

liability without fault

Product Liability

A defective product has been placed in the stream of commerce causing damages, the user, consumer and/or bystander may bring forth a lawsuit against the seller, manufacturer, and/or retailer

Defenses to product liability

1. Assumption of the risk

2. Product misuse

3. Comparative negligence

4. Commonly known dangers

Contracts

In order to create a valid contract you must have

- offer

- acceptance

- consideration

What makes up a contract

offer, acceptance, consideration