8:52 : : X V Legal Research, Analy... . . . platform.virdocs.com art 3 / The Specifics of Legal Analysis Consider authority from another jurisdiction only when there is no authority from the jurisdiction in which the client's case arose. If in doubt about whether a fact is a key fact, continue your analysis until you are certain. Refer to the steps presented in Chapter 9 Follow your instincts. If an opinion does not appear to be on point but your intuition tells you it is on point, continue your analysis until you are certain. If you never reach the point of feeling certain, search elsewhere. VI. APPLICATION This section presents two examples illustrating the application of the principles presented in this chapter for determining when a case is on point. A. Chapter Hypothetical This example is based on the fact pattern presented at the beginning of this chapter. Returning to that problem, is the case of Karl v. Herald on point so that it applies as precedent for the client's case? 1. Are the Key Facts Sufficiently Similar? The first step is to determine whether the key facts of Karl v. Herald are sufficiently similar to the client's case for Karl to apply as precedent-to be on point. Although the facts in Karl are somewhat different, they are sufficiently similar. In both cases, the corporation was in a position to pay dividends. In both cases, while refusing to pay dividends, the majority shareholder allegedly enriched himself through excessive raises and bonuses. In both cases, the minority shareholders were effectively prevented from benefiting by the corporation's success. A difference in Karl is the plaintiff worked in the business. In the client's case, the brothers never worked in the business. This difference in the cases is not a key fact difference. The fact that the plaintiff in Karl worked in the business relates to her status as an employee, but does not relate to her status as a shareholder. In Karl, the court defined oppressive conduct as conduct against shareholders, not employees. The plaintiff's status as an employee may give rise to employee rights, but it is not related to her rights as a shareholder, and thus is not a key fact. 2. Are the Rules or Principles Sufficiently Similar? Is there a sufficient similarity between the law that applies in Karl v. Herald and that which applies in the client's case for the case to be considered on point and apply as precedent? The same statute, $ 96-25-16 of the Business Corporation Act, applies to both the court opinion and the client's case. Both cases involve allegations of oppress sive conduct by a majority shareholder against a minority shareholder and are governed by the same section of the statute. In the Karl opinion, oppressive conduct was defined as "any unfair or fraudulent act by a majority shareholder that inures to the benefit of the majority and to the detriment of the minority." The client's case also involves questions of oppressive conduct by the majority shareholder and is governed by the same definition. Just as in Karl, there is alleged unfair conduct by the majority shareholder that inures to the benefit of the majority and to the detriment of the minority. There are no major differences between Karl and the client's case that restrict the application of Karl as precedent. Note: What if you concluded that Karl was not on point, but it was the only case in the jurisdiction that discusses oppressive conduct? You would need to be sure to analyze the case in the memorandum to your supervisor and explain why the case is not on point. B. Libel Case The following fact situation and court opinion illustrate another example of the use of the steps discussed in this chapter. OSR NI LN | Chapter 12 / Case Law AnalysisIs a Case on Point? For Example Thomas Abachin is a former attorney who was a lead partner in a wellknown local law firm. He has known the current governor for 20 years, having graduated from the same college. The Governor announced she intended to appoint Abachin to a special investigator position in state government. Several days after the announcement, the State Times printed a lengthy article by columnist, Sandra Murphy titled, "Govemor backs Abachin despite disbarment.\" Abachin concedes the article accurately reflects the false charges he levied against a local judge ten years before that led to the loss of his license to practice law. Abachin admitted he had lost his law license for a time, but he was only suspended, not disbarred, and he re- gained his law license through a reinstatement process. A week later, a second article was published by Murphy titled, "Abachin's lack of morality makes mockery of Governor's quest for morality in government.\" The second article further revealed Abachin had a criminal conviction while in college.The article explained "Abachin was convicted of a crime for driving while intoxicated.\" The article went on fo state Abachin failed to disclose the conviction on his application for the investigator position. However, Abachin was charged with driving while intoxicated, but he was convicted of careless driv- ing. He admitted to failing fo include the conviction on his application. Ultimately, the Gover nor denied the appointment of Abachin to the investigator position. Abachin decides to sue Murphy for defamation. In his complaint, Abachin alleges Murphy's statements were motivated by illwill, spite, malice, and the intent to injure. Abachin also alleged the articles were politically motivated. Defamation is a case law fort in the state. it has four elements: (1) false statement, (2) about plaintiff, (3) published without privilege, and (4) caused harm to plaintiff. Because Abachin is a public figure, there is the added element of actual malice by the defendant. A leading case in the state is Goodman v. White. In Goodman, White was a columnist for a local weekly publication. Goodman, a for- mer police officer and public figure, was named by the Governor as the next drug czar, a cabinet position. White wrote and published two arficles in the week after the appointment was announced.The articles were titled: "Martinez backs White despite arrest record\" and "Martinez' handling of White affair may render fraudulent her of title as champion of moral high-mindedness.\" The arlicles detailed Goodman's conviction for drug possession 20 years prior to the appointment and his court-martial while in the Army. Goodman acknowledged the conviction and the court-martial. In his complaint, he asserted the articles by White were motivated by ill-will and malice and that the articles were politically motivated. Goodman admitted the conviction and the court-martial. Goodman's lawsuit was dismissed on a summary judgment motion.The court held that actual malice is not established through evidence of bad motives or personal ill-will. The court further held actual malice requires proof the statements were published with either knowledge they were false or reckless disregard for whether the statements were true of false. In this example, is Goodman v. White on point so that it applies as precedent in Abachin's case? 1. Are the Key Facts Sufficiently Simitar? Both cases involve statements that were published in local newspapers. In both cases, there is the question of whether the statements were made with actual malice. In the Goodman case, even though White may have had ill-will, and his writing of the articles may have been politically motivated, ill-will and personal motives were not sufficient to prove actual malice. Moreover, the statements were true. Are the facts concerning the articles published by Murphy in Abachin's case sufficiently similar? It is question- able. In the Goodman case, White's statements in the articles may have been driven by ill-will or a personal bias against Goodman, but there was no evidence of acrual malice. Similarly, in Abachin's case, there are only allegations ofill-will and personal bias, but no evidence of more than thatno evidence of actual bias. It could be argued that some key facts are clearly differentthose involving the truth or falsity of the statements publishedand that the Goodman case is therefore not on point. In Abachin's case, Murphy incorrectly stated the offense for which Abachin had been convicted. In addition, she failed to note the disbarment was reduced to a suspension on appeal, with Abachin regaining his license at a later time. Abachin did admit he left the conviction off of his application for