CRM 123 - Case Analysis 2 Fact Patterns For each fact pattern, specify the essential legal issue(s) involved, describe the legal concepts from the text, decide which side should win, and explain your reasoning and how you used the legal concepts to arrive at your decision. See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing this assignment. 1. Chris Rock v. Larry the Cable Guy Larry the Cable Guy and Chris Rock decided to go on a \"laugh tour\" together. They believed that with Larry's redneck humor and Chris' urban jokes, they could pack the venues with twice as many fans. They made millions of dollars. Soon thereafter, they split up as an act; however, Larry continued to use some of the material that was written by Chris. While they were a duo act, they had contractually agreed that if they ever broke up, they would not use each other's material without payment. Larry has not paid Chris anything for the use of his comic material, so Chris is suing him in civil court for breach of contract and asking the court to award him $500,000 in unpaid fees for the use of his material. To notify Larry that he is a defendant in a breach of contract lawsuit, the court has twice attempted to serve a summons and complaint at Larry's permanent residence. Because Larry frequently travels with his act, he was not found at home. The process server petitioned the court for alternative service and it was granted. Larry was thereby sent the complaint and summons by certified mail, and notification of the suit was also published for two weeks in the local newspaper. Larry knows he has been violating the contract with Chris, and that sooner-or-later he would be sued; therefore, he never accepts certified letters or reads the local paper. Needless to say, Larry never responded to the suit. After six months have elapsed, Chris motioned for a default judgment in his favor for $500,000 and court costs, and this motion was granted. Now Larry is appealing this default judgment because he was not properly notified of the suit against him. In your analysis, discuss whether you would you affirm or reverse the default judgment? 2. W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company W.R. Reeves filed suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act against his employer, Central of Georgia Railway Company, seeking damages he allegedly suffered when the train on which he was working derailed near Griffin, Georgia. The liability of the defendant railroad was established at trial, and the issue of damages remained to be fixed. Several physicians testified, as did Reeves. On the witness stand, he said that an examining physician had told him that he would be unable to work because of a weakness in his right arm, a dead place on his arm, stiffness in his neck, and nerve trouble in his back. Is the admission of this testimony reversible error (i.e., the testimony should not have been allowed)? In your analysis, be sure to include legal reasoning as to why the testimony should or should not be used. 3. Paris Hilton v.Lindsey Lohan Paris Hilton, a resident of Beverly Hills, and Lindsey Lohan, a fellow Californian, had an agreement. Lindsey agreed to give Paris the right to party in the VIP lounges of any club in California on Saturday nights. In exchange, Paris would give Lindsey the same right, but on Friday nights. This way, the two would not have to compete for the attention of the paparazzi. Earlier this year, on a day when Lindsey was scheduled to appear in court and possibly be sent to jail, Paris decided to party in California on a Friday. She figured Lindsey could not party due to her court troubles and probable incarceration. Lindsey in fact went to the clubs on Friday, but many of the photographers were already covering Paris and did not have the time to take photos of Lindsey. Lindsey has filed a lawsuit against Paris alleging breach of contract. She heard the kind folks in Texas really liked her, so she filed her lawsuit there to get a favorable jury. The sheriff, a huge fan, was nice enough to drive out to California to deliver the summons and complaint to Paris. Unfortunately, Paris was not home, so he placed it in the mail box, and went on a tour of the stars' homes. When Paris found the lawsuit, she read it and ripped it into small pieces. Paris has not responded to the lawsuit, and Lindsey has moved for a default and default judgment. The judge doesn't like Paris, and thinks she is a spoiled brat, so he granted the default judgment. He awarded Lindsey damages in the amount of $100,000. Is he correct? If Paris hires an attorney to respond to the lawsuit, what arguments should she make? CASE ANALYSIS 1 Student name Case Analysis Mod 3 Professor Vivaldi CASE ANALYSIS 2 Case Analysis and Fact Patterns Case #1 Kurt v. Saint Leo Police Department Main Issue: There are several main issues in this case. The main issue is the arrest that was made by a Saint Leo Police Officer. The Officer's arrest of Kurt was based on an event that took place before the event was considered a violation of law. The issued arrest warrant led to the discovery of marijuana in the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: The events in this case describe a violation of the ex post facto law, \"laws that make acts criminal that were not criminal at the time they were committed\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 308). Kurt was arrested for a noise violation that had occurred prior to the noise violation law being enacted. There was also an illegal search and seizure that took place before the arrest. \"A valid search warrant must be specific and sufficiently descriptive. An officer conducting a search is prohibited from going outside the limits set by the warrant\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 340). In this case the officer has gone outside the limits of the arrest warrant by entering the home and entering the refrigerator. (NOTE: Must have excerpts from text here) Relevant Case Law: In the case Weeks v. United States \"we adopted the federal exclusionary rule for evidence that was unlawfully seized from a home without a warrant in violation of the fourth Amendment\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). This illustrates the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. (NOTE: Same here) In this case the police officer has violated the ex post facto clause, unlawfully entered and searched the plaintiff's home and falsely arrested the plaintiff. It is unlawful for the court to issue a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest because the ex post fact clause states that a person cannot be charged for a crime that was not technically a crime at the time of commission. Due to the arrest warrant being invalid the officer had no right to enter the plaintiff's home; the warrant was also only for the plaintiff and did not prescribe the search of the refrigerator as there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was hiding in the refrigerator. Therefore the marijuana was unlawfully discovered and not authorized to be a criminal charge. Ruling: The ruling in this case should reflect the disregard for the law by both the court that issued the warrant and the police officer. The officer not only violated the law but also violated the Saint Leo Police Department's code of ethics by searching for a drink in the plaintiff's home. The court should be held legally liable and the officer should be held legally and civilly liable. All charges should be dropped. Case #2 State v. Summer Main Issue: The main issue in this case is what charges if any should Anna and Summer face for their attempted bank robbery. CASE ANALYSIS 3 Relevant Legal Concepts: In this case both Anna and Summer demonstrated their intent or mens rea to commit the crime of robbery. Anna's intent is shown by the fact that she entered the bank with the duffel bag and mask as planned and when she reached the counter had then decided not to commit the robbery, however she mistakenly grabbed the wrong bag on her way out of the bank which contained $100,000. Summer's intent is shown by her decision to take Ana to another bank and then wait outside for her to complete the robbery. Relevant Case Law: In the case State v. Gordon the defendant stated that he did not have intent to retain possession of the vehicle he took which would make him innocent of the charge of robbery. \"The wrongdoer must intend: (1) an advantageous relationship between himself and the property wrongfully taken, and (2) that such relationship be permanent rather than temporary.\" (Shubert, 2009, p. 316). It is this example that demonstrates Ana and Summer's intent to take money from the bank for their own use. Ruling: Ana and Summer both demonstrated their intent to commit robbery by going to the bank with the bag, mask and getaway vehicle. Even though Ana did not actually rob her intended target, the bank, she still committed robbery because she came out of the bank with property that she did not go into the bank with and in the process of obtaining this property she had the real intent to rob the bank and leave with money. In my opinion both of the girls should be charged with robbery. Due to the facts stated above I believe that a judge would agree with the reasoning presented and proceed with the same charges. Case #3 Jason v. City Municipality Main Issue: The main issue in this case is whether the police officer had legal authority to enter the plaintiff's home. Relevant Legal Concepts: This case refers to search and seizure concepts as well as the exclusionary rule. (Shubert, 2009) The police officer assumed that just because she saw a monkey in the plaintiff's home it was the stolen monkey. She did not have sufficient probable cause to enter the home. The officer thought that she was using proper \"knock and announce\" procedures however those procedures apply to arrest warrants not vague suspicion. The officer also did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to answer the door. Relevant Case Law: In the case Hudson v. Michigan the court affirmed that a knock and announce \"is not necessary when \"circumstances present a threat of physical violence,\" or if there is \"reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given\" (Schubert, 2009, p. 344). In this case it is not reasonable for the officer to believe that there are any circumstances that would present a threat or that any evidence would be destroyed if she did not knock and announce. CASE ANALYSIS 4 Ruling: The police officer in this case did not have an arrest warrant or reasonable suspicion to enter the plaintiff's home. Even though she knocked and announced herself she did not provide sufficient time for the plaintiff to open the door. She did not have any reason to believe that the plaintiff was a threat or that he would destroy evidence due to the fact that she was not aware of any potential evidence in the home. Because she did not have the legal authority to enter the home she cannot charge the plaintiff for the drugs found in his possession. Those drugs were discovered during an illegal search and seizure. The plaintiff should be acquitted of the charges brought upon him and the officer should be held legally responsible for violating the plaintiff's fourth Amendment. She should also be held civilly liable for any damage she may have caused to his door upon the illegal entry into the home. CASE ANALYSIS 5 References Shubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law. Mason, OH: Cengage . All cases cited throughout the narrative must also be cited here