Can you Identify the key facts in each of the hypotheticals presented using these four steps? 

Step 1: identify each cause of action

 

Step 2: Determine the elements

Step 3: List all facts related to the elements

Step 4: Determine which facts apply

Hypothetical 1:

It was the late afternoon of an already long day when Kevin realized he still had a lot of work to finish before he could go home. Kevin has been Randi McGuire's paralegal for the past five years. He admires her for her tenacity and appreciates the responsibility and independence she gives him in the performance of his assignments. Kevin's primary role is to conduct the initial interview with the client, prepare a summary of the interview, and assemble a legal memorandum containing an identification of the legal issues and an analysis of the applicable law. Identifying the legal issue is often the trickiest part of Kevin's job. It did not seem, however, that it would be too much of a problem in Ida Carry's case. He had just finished his interview with Ms. Carry, whose home is across the street from Roosevelt Elementary School. Ms. Carry's best friend, Karen, lives a block away. Karen's seven-year-old son attends school at Roosevelt. Last month, on April 14, Ida was in her front yard planting tulips. It was lunchtime, and children were playing in the playground. She heard the crossing guard's whistle blow and tires squealing. She looked up and saw a car approaching a curve in the school zone at a very high rate of speed. It jumped the curb, crashed through the chain-link fence surrounding the playground, and hit the seesaw. The first thing she recognized was the car-it was Bob Barton's hot-rod Camaro. It looked like he was going too fast, lost control on the curve in the school zone, and crashed through the fence. Bob, a local teen, continually raced in the neighborhood.

Several teachers had complained to his parents, who had done nothing. Bob had received several speeding tickets. The second thing Ida noticed was that two children playing on the seesaw had been injured. One of them was Karen's son, Tim. When Ida realized that it was Tim who had been hurt, she became extremely upset. Since the wreck, Ida has had severe insomnia and extreme anxiety. When she can sleep, she has nightmares. Her doctor prescribed medication for her nerves and to help her sleep, and he recently referred her help her sleep, and he recently referred her to a psychologist. Ida has come to Ms.

McGuire's office seeking to recover the expenses she has incurred.

Hypothetical 2:

"Mary, I want you to determine whether we can get the evidence suppressed in this case. I need a memo on this by the day after tomorrow, if possible." Jan handed Mary the case file as she gave these instructions. Mary Strate is a legal assistant working in an Oregon law firm that specializes in criminal defense. Jan Brite is Mary's supervising attorney and, according to Jan, Mary is her "right hand." After reviewing the case and conducting some research, Mary's focus turns to the significant facts relevant to the issue of suppression of the evidence. She

determines that there are several key facts.

The state police seized the evidence during the execution of a search warrant. A state court judge improperly issued the warrant.

The warrant was improperly issued and, therefore, defective because the state police did not present to the court sufficient probable cause to justify the search. The opposing side, the state, concedes that the warrant was improperly issued. The officers did not know the warrant was defective and executed it in the good-faith belief that it was valid. Mary's research indicates that the resolution of the issue is governed by Oregon's exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence illegally seized may not be admitted at trial. The rule was adopted by the state supreme court and is not statutory.

Hypothetical 3:

"That bum has cheated us for the last time," David Simms said as he walked out the office door. David Simms and his brother, Don, had just finished their initial interview with Ms.Booth, the attorney who would handle their case. Their tale was one of financial abuse by their older brother, Steve. Their father, Dilbert Simms, died five years ago and left his plumbing business, Happy Flush, Inc., to his three sons-Steve, Don, and David. Steve, who has been running the business for the past eight years, was left 52 percent of the stock. David and Don, who never worked at Happy Flush and were employed in other occupations, were each left 24 percent. As the majority shareholder, Steve completely controls the business. To date, he refuses to issue stock dividends even though the corporation has an accumulated cash surplus of $500,000. He has given himself three very large salary increases and several cash bonuses since his father's death. When questioned by David and Don about stock dividends, he tells them, "You don't work in the business. You don't deserve any money out of it. If you want any money, you're going to have to get your hands in the poop every day just like I do." After this conversation, David and Don consulted the supervising attorney, Ms. Booth. They seek redress for the wrong they feel their brother has committed in refusing to issue dividends. The paralegal's task, assigned by Ms. Booth, is to find the applicable statute and the leading case on point in the jurisdiction. The statute, section

96-25-16 of the Business Corporation Act, provides that a court may order the liquidation of a corporation when a majority shareholder has engaged in oppressive conduct. The statute, however, does not define what constitutes oppressive conduct. The hard part of the assignment is locating a case on point in the jurisdiction that defines or provides the elements of oppressive conduct. After an extensive search, the paralegal finds only one case dealing with oppressive conduct, Karl v.

Herald. In this case, a husband and wife owned a small corporation in which the shareholder has engaged in oppressive conduct. The statute, however, does not define what constitutes oppressive conduct. The hard part of the assignment is locating a case on point in the jurisdiction that defines or provides the elements of oppressive conduct. After an extensive search, the paralegal finds only one case dealing with oppressive conduct, Karl v.

Herald. In this case, a husband and wife owned a small corporation in which the husband owned 75 percent of the stock and the wife owned 25 percent. When they divorced, he fired her from her salaried position of bookkeeper, took away her company car, and refused to issue stock dividends. The company was very profitable, had a large cash surplus, and was clearly in a financial position to issue dividends. After the divorce, the husband gave himself a hefty salary increase. The court held that he had engaged in oppressive conduct in freezing his wife out of the corporation. It defined oppressive conduct 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."