Unit 3 Seminar

You receive points for discussion board posts. You should make sure that responses are made at least three days during the unit (Wednesday thru Tuesday)

Assignments should be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on the Tuesday night that the unit ends.

If you have missing assignments. I will contact you. It is your responsibility to make sure that you contact me to make arrangements to make-up the missed work.

If you miss a seminar, you are able to access an archive of the seminar and write a one-page, double-spaced summary of the seminar to earn the points

There are four graded assignments due this week:

Unit 3 –Seminar (graded) - This week's Seminar we will discuss this week’s assignment—case briefs.

Unit 3 Assignment: Using the FIRAC briefing method, prepare a brief for the three cases labeled Unit 3 Assignment in

DocSharing. Remember to include the Bluebook citation for each case at the top of each brief. Combine the three briefs

into one MS Word document and submit to the Dropbox.

Unit 3– Discussion Board Postings (graded) –Access the Unit 3 discussion link to make your comments. Make sure

you address all parts of the questions.

Unit 3 Quiz—take during the unit week!

Posts must be made over a period of three out of seven days.

Submitted within 5 days Telephone and/or email checks

Working with Case Law In this week’s seminar, we will discuss

the following: How to read a case Identifying the parts of a case Briefing cases using the FIRAC method Using the Bluebook to cite cases

Let’s identify the parts of case.

Do you know? What purpose does it serve?

Case brief: A tool for understanding the components

of a case. T he case brief contains headings for categorizing these components where important and pertinent concepts from the case are summarized.

To help you understand the case Organized and systematic approach to

understanding the case. Read the case at least one time before

starting.

What is it? Why is it important?

Facts Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion

Include the following sections:

Procedural history Facts Issue Rule of Law Analysis Conclusion

Describes the path this particular case took through the court system. For example, if an appeals court reversed a jury verdict, you might write: “the intermediate appellate court reversed a jury verdict that had been returned in favor of the Plaintiff.”

Facts: The necessary, substantive facts that the court used to reach its decision.

The Facts briefly describe the parties to the dispute, what led them to court, and, in the case of appellate proceedings, the procedural history of the case.  Sorting out the parties and their status is an important part of understanding a case.

You should limit your discussion of what happened to the relevant facts, those things that made a difference to the court in arriving at its holding.

Issue: A concise statement of the applicable rule and the relevant facts that are before the court.

The issue (or issues) before the court is the question at the heart of a dispute, which the court is called upon to settle. 

Understanding the issue is arguably the most important part of a case brief, because if you don’t understand the question, you will miss the answer, and perhaps overlook a case that could be helpful to your research. 

In many cases, the opinion states the issue in unambiguous terms.  Look for sentences that begin with phrases such as “The question to be decided by the court…” or “The issue in this case is…” 

If the opinion itself does not spell out the issue, perhaps the overview of the case prepared by the publisher or the Synopsis prepared by the court official will designate it for you.

Some law firms follow the practice of providing brief answers to each issue(such as “yes” or “no”), following the listing of issues. “

Rule: The legal principle that the court used in its resolution of the matter.

Rule of Law: This section generally covers the issue presented, rephrased as a statement, either in the affirmative or the negative, with a brief explanation as to the decision.

This part of the case sets forth the relevant statutes, regulations, ordinances, or common law principles that the court applies in arriving at its decision. 

It is not enough to simply list the applicable

rule, but to also mention any exception or defense that the court applied.

Analysis/application-the explanation of how the court determined the rule and its application to the facts.

Analysis: This, the most important section of the brief, explains why the court decided the way it did.

In this section, you will describe the argument that each party presented and how the court responded and applied the facts to the relevant law. 

If there were any facts that the court found “controlling” or “dispositive” (i.e., made a difference), be sure these facts have previously been mentioned so that the conclusion falls into place. 

Describe the court’s reasons for the decision:  what policy considerations were behind its decisions?  Did the court describe any flaws in existing law or announce any changes its decision would bring about?

If there were any concurring or dissenting opinions, as there often are in Supreme Court cases, identify the author and briefly summarize that justice’s position.

Holding/Conclusion: The court’s decision in the case being briefed. The holding includes what the court decided about the legal issue, and the disposition of the case (overruled, affirmed, etc.)

Conclusion: The disposition is the final determination of the matter, generally expressed as "affirmed," "reversed," or "remanded."

Briefly state the final outcome of the case.  In an appellate opinion, that would include how the opinion being appealed was affected (e.g., affirmed, modified, reversed and remanded, vacated, etc.).

On the day in question, Pig’s brothers reported that Wolf had destroyed their homes and attempted to eat them. Moments later, Wolf appeared at Pig’s newly constructed brick home, disguised as a brush salesman.

When Pig would not let him in, Wolf threatened to destroy his home. Finding the brick house sturdy enough to withstand his huffing and puffing, Wolf entered the house through the chimney and fell into a kettle of boiling water, sustaining severe injuries.

Wolf subsequently sued Pig, seeking damages based on the theory of premises liability and assault. Pig counterclaimed, alleging trespass and seeking punitive damages for severe emotional distress..

The jury found in favor of Pig, and Wolf appeals, alleging

1. It was error to admit evidence of Wolf’s prior attacks on Pig’s brothers.

2. Pig had a duty to keep his premises safe for visitors,

3. The kettle of boiling water was a trap to inflict injury on him

4. Pig was not entitled to use deadly force on visitor.

5. Pig was not entitled to emotional distress damages.

1. Whether it was error to admit evidence of Wolf’s prior attacks on Pig’s brothers.

2. Whether Pig had a duty to keep his premises safe for predator who entered premises for purposes of destroying house and killing and eating homeowner.

3. Whether kettle of boiling water at bottom of fireplace was a trap to inflict injury on one seeking entrance through chimney.

4. Whether Pig was entitled to use deadly force to repel attacks of Wolf who had threatened to kill his brothers and destroy Pig’s home.

5. Whether Pig was entitled to emotional distress damages.

1. It was not error to admit evidence of Wolf’s prior attacks on Pig’s brothers to show Wolf’s intent on entering Pig’s premises.

2. Pig had no duty to keep his premises safe for predator who entered premises for purposes of destroying house and killing and eating homeowner.

3. Kettle of boiling water could reasonably be expected to be found at bottom of fireplace and was therefore not a trap to inflict injury on one seeking entrance through chimney.

4. Pig was entitled to use deadly force to repel attacks of Wolf who had threatened to kill his brothers and destroy Pig’s home.

5. Pig was entitled to emotional distress damages for being put in reasonable fear of his life.

1. Evidence of Wolf’s prior attacks on Pig’s brothers was admissible to show Wolf’s intent on entering Pig’s premises.

1. Pig had no duty to keep his premises safe for predator who entered premises for purposes of destroying house and killing and eating homeowner. Wolf was a trespasser, not an invitee, and was entitled only to be free of hidden perils.

2. Kettle of boiling water could reasonably be expected to be found at bottom of fireplace and was therefore not a hidden trap to inflict injury on one seeking entrance through chimney.

3. Pig was entitled to use deadly force to repel attacks of Wolf who had threatened to kill his brothers and destroy Pig’s home.

4. Pig was entitled to emotional distress damages for being put in reasonable fear of his life.

.

The court found no legal error in admitting evidence of Wolf’s prior conduct, in jury finding of Wolf’s liability to Pig as a trespasser, and in award of punitive damages to Pig, and affirmed the verdict of the trial court.

Have a great week. See you in the discussion boards