First Written Assignment - Legal Environment & Torts
This assignment requires you to answer a number of questions regarding the court's opinion in a case (that begins on page 6) (as well as with respect to some variations as described in the questions below) using the knowledge you have gained (and are gaining) about the legal environment and tort law. You do not need to consult any outside sources (i.e., other than the case, your course textbook and your class notes) to complete the assignment.
Your answers should be written in sentences and in your own words. Some of the answers will be relatively short (such as identifying the parties, the court, reporters, timing, or examples of sources of law).
Other questions ask for more information (such as descriptions or explanations, including those questions that ask "how" or "why"), and will require longer answers. Do not just rely on the facts for explaining the reasons for your longer answers, as some analysis of the law (i.e., legal reasoning) is also required.
You should also refrain from solely relying on quotes from the case to answer the questions asked. Where applicable in your answers, you should use the terms, phrases and concepts used in the textbook and in class.
The assignment must be typed, double spaced, in a 12 point font, and use approximately 1 inch margins. Your answers should be between 6 and 10 pages (not counting a cover page if you choose to use one) in length.
You should refrain from using "etc." and any abbreviation unless you have clearly defined it in your answers. Proofread your answers - I do take off for excessive typographical and/or grammatical errors, as well as for failing to follow these Instructions.
Number your answers to correspond with the numbers of the Questions below.
Please be sure to include on your assignment (1) your names and (2) the class time (11:00 a.m. or 3:30 p.m.) for which you are registered for the course.
Remember to timely submit your assignment both (1) in person or via email and (2) via SafeAssign2 on UB Learns.
Questions
1. (a) Who is the plaintiff in the case?
(b) Who is the defendant in the case?
(c) What occurred that resulted in the plaintiff suing the defendant? (In other words, briefly summarize the facts in your own words.)
2. (a) (i) In what court did the plaintiff initiate the lawsuit? (ii) Is this a state court or a federal court?
(b) What is the full name of the court that issued the attached opinion in the case? Be sure to indicate whether this is (i) a state or a federal court and (ii) a trial or an appellate court.
(c) What is the name of the reporter in which decisions of the court that issued the attached opinion are reported? How is that reporter abbreviated?
(d) On what basis did the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the case? Quote a phrase or sentence in the court decision that supports your answer to this question and indicate on what page of the assignment the quoted language appears.
(e) Assuming that the losing party wants to appeal the attached court decision, what is the full name of the court to which that party should appeal? Be specific (i.e., if there are several courts that have the same general name your answer should include the name or designation that distinguishes the court from others of its same type). Be sure to also indicate whether this is (i) a state or a federal court and (ii) a trial or an appellate court.
(f) What is the name of the reporter in which decisions of the court referred to in Question 2(e) reported? How is that reporter abbreviated?
3. The attached court decision cites a number of different sources of law. Provide an example (by proper citation to that source of law) from the attached court decision of each of the following sources of law (or indicate "none" if that source of law is not cited in the attached court decision):
(a) A federal statute
(b) A state statute
(c) A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
(d) A decision of a federal appellate court other than the U.S. Supreme Court
(e) A decision of a federal trial court
(f) A decision of a state court (can be a state trial court or a state appellate court)
4. (a) What happened procedurally in the lawsuit before the court issued the attached opinion?
(b) What procedural question(s) or issue(s) did the court have to decide?
(c) What did the court conclude with respect to the procedural question(s) or issue(s) identified in 4(b) and why?
5. (a) What torts did the plaintiff allege that the defendant had committed?
(b) For each of the torts alleged in the complaint, what did the court conclude and why?
6. If you were the plaintiff's attorney, what would you advise the plaintiff to do next (i.e., shortly after the attached court decision was issued)? Why? Is there anything in the court's opinion that provides a clue or suggestion as to what the plaintiff should do next? If so, quote the applicable phrase or sentence and indicate what page of the assignment on which it appears.
7. The opinion in the case includes a discussion of defamation under Kansas law.
How does the opinion's description of defamation (particularly as to any relevant requirements and defenses under Kansas law) differ from how defamation was described in class (and in the textbook)?
8. The court's opinion in the case refers to a form of discovery that was used by the parties in the case. Identify that form of discovery and quote an applicable phrase or sentence in the court's opinion that supports your answer and indicate the page of the assignment on which it appears.
9. For purposes of this Question 9 and Question 10 only, assume the following additional facts (together with the facts described in the case to the extent they are consistent with these additional facts):
Shortly after Musicland terminated Etzel's employment, Mark Johnson posted a picture of Etzel on Facebook with the following statement:
"Gotcha! I caught another embezzler who admitted to stealing more than $75,000 from Musicland. Bye bye Richard Etzel!"
Etzel filed his lawsuit against both Musicland and Mark Johnson.
How would you expect these additional facts to affect the court's ultimate analysis of (and conclusion with respect to) the tort claims that were made in this case? Why? What, if any, further additional facts, would you want to know to help you (or the court) answer this Question 9?
10. Based on the additional facts in Question 9, would you advise the plaintiff to sue Facebook for any of the torts alleged in the case? If so, why and for which tort(s)? If no, why not? What if any, further additional facts, would you want to know to help you answer this Question 10?
11. For purposes of this Question 11 only, assume the following additional facts:
On August 23, 1990, Johnson first confronted Etzel in the jazz music section of the Musicland store at the West Ridge Mall and said the following to Etzel:
"You don't know me, but I work for Musicland too and I'm here to investigate all the money you've stolen from the company. You need to come to the backroom RIGHT NOW MISTER ETZEL!"
When he questioned Etzel in the backroom of the Musicland store at the West Ridge Mall, Mark Johnson locked the door to the backroom and would not let Etzel leave until he agreed to "admit what [he] did" and "sign something".
Etzel told Johnson that he was feeling very dehydrated and asked for a glass of water or if he could go get a glass of water for himself. Johnson refused to give Etzel any water and would not let him leave the room until after Etzel wrote and signed the $243 check and the statement. After Etzel signed the check and statement, Johnson unlocked the door to let Etzel leave the backroom.
As Etzel was leaving the backroom, he collapsed from the dehydration he had really been experiencing. Believing the Etzel was just faking his collapse, Johnson kicked Etzel in his right leg and punched him in the face, which also left Etzel with a sore right shin and a black eye.
Etzel filed his lawsuit against both Musicland and Mark Johnson.
(a) How would you expect these additional facts to affect the court's ultimate analysis of (and conclusion with respect to) the tort claims that were made in this case? Why? What, if any, further additional facts, would you want to know to help you (or the court) answer this Question 12(a)?
(b) If you represented the plaintiff, what, if any, other tort claims would you suggest that the plaintiff assert against the defendant and/or Mark Johnson? Why? What, if any, further additional facts, would you want to know to help you (or the court) answer this Question 12(b)?
Attachment:- Legal Environment & Torts.rar