1. I need help trying to bluebook cite my assignment? I submitted and assignment last weeks identifying the parts of a case ex: Procedural History, Facts, Analysis, Issues Rule of Law & Conclusion. My assignment this week states to download a copy of last weeks assignment Revise the document, specifically your responses to questions 3-7,adding proper Bluebook citations. I honestly have no idea how to do that, I need an example to go off. Here is the assignment I submitted.

Unit 3 Assignment: Analyzing Facts, Issues, and Legal Authorities

Do some quick research about New York Courts. What is unique about how the courts are titled as compared to most other state courts in the country?

In NY the highest court is not the Supreme Court as it is in the other states in the US. Cases begin in the Trial Court, then if they are appealed, they will go to the Intermediate Appellate Court, if an appeal is granted beyond Appellate Court, they will then move to New York Court of Appeals which is the highest court in NY. Generally, cases begin in Circuit Court, move to Superior Court then finally to the Supreme Court in all other states.

What types of legal authorities are Basso and Navedo? Are they considered primary sources? If so what type primary? Are they secondary sources? If so what type of secondary sources?

The legal authorities in Basso v. Miller are both primary and secondary. The primary sources pertained to vehicle laws which they relied on for the motorcycle issue and secondary sources that point to prior cases. The legal authorities in Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue are secondary sources as they relate to prior court decisions.

What are the Facts and Procedural History of Basso? What are the Facts and Procedural History of Navedo? This answer should be in a separate paragraph with 2 headings: "Facts" and "Procedural History".

Facts Basso v. Miller

Ice Caves Mountain "ICM" operates a large scenic park as a tourist attraction on property leased from the village of Ellenville. The park is open during the summer months from 8am to hour before dark. Patrons are admitted to the park after paying an admission fee.

On September 3, 1972 patron Jeffrey Shawcross walked off the main trail and fell into a 40' crevice. Frederick Coutant another customer of "ICM" after hearing of the accident went to the hamlet of Cragsmore to tell a few people. William Miller "defendant" and friend rode double on a motorcycle to "ICM" where the defendant spoke to Annette Ballantine "Ballantine" about helping in the rescue. Ballantine claims she never told the defendant that it was ok to help or raised the bar to let him in the gate. She further claims that the gate was down, and the defendant rode through an open space.Ballantine claims once she learned of the accident, she alerted her boss Fred Grau "Grau" and the first responders. She did raise the gate for them and explained that common practice is to have guests of "ICM" sign in at the gatehouse. Grau claims he told defendant to move the motorcycle because it was in the location the ambulance needed to be. Defendant says he was allowed to stay and help with first aid and rescue operations, however the volunteer fire chief Stedner claims that Grau was the only civilian allowed to help because the other civilians didn't know what to do. Defendant left the mountain around 9:30-10:00pm again riding double on the motorcycle. At a sharp curve they hit some potholes and were thrown from the bike. Plaintiff Basso claims to have only been in the park one time that summer prior to this day but, defendant claims to have been many times and in fact "knows it like the back of his hand."

Facts Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue

The plaintiff Awildo Navedo "plaintiff" was pushing her cart at the 250 Willis Ave Supermarket "defendant", when she slipped and fell in the household aisle on some spilled liquid detergent. Plaintiff and her neighbor both claim to have heard the store manager tell another employee that the spill should have been cleaned up prior to the fall.

Procedural History Basso v. Miller

The court charged the jury to the effect that the plaintiff's status at "ICM" was determined by the duty of care owed by "ICM". This could be determined by deciding what role the defendant played. Was he a trespasser with no right to be there, therefore he could collect nothing from "ICM"? Was he a guest, where "ICM" owed him a duty to keep safe from dangerous conditions? Or was he there on business, as a patron, in which case "ICM" would have a duty to keep him safe from being injured.

"ICM" contends that according to NY standards "as a licensee a plaintiff must take the premises as found". An owner is only negligible if they have set a trap or were aware of dangers and did not report them. In addition, "ICM" has a duty to warn of dangers that a person could not see with his own eyes.

Based on these rules the court split the verdict 60/40. The 60% went to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. However, the court upholds that a landowner must maintain his property in reasonably safe conditions in light of any circumstance. So "ICM" should have maintained their roads better

Procedural History Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue

The procedural history is that the Supreme court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgement dismissing the complaint, reversing it without costs. The motion for denied and the original complaint was re-instated.

What is the legal issue in each case? This should be stated in its own section with a heading "Issue(s)"

Issues Basso v. Miller

The issue in this case is the duty of care that was owed to the defendant may not have been the same upon entering the park as it was upon leaving the park. Depending on defendant's status at ICM if he was a trespasser or a guest. The second issue is the motorcycle and if the cycle was a single or double passenger vehicle. If the cycle was indeed a single passenger vehicle then that would constitute as negligence upon defendant's part and be a proximate cause of his injury.

Issues Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue

Even though the plaintiff and her neighbor overheard the store manager say to another employee that the spill should have been cleaned up which would be hearsay, it falls within the admission of acceptance and would be considered competent evidence.

What is the rule(s) of law that each court seems to rely on in reaching its decision? This should be stated in its own paragraph: "Rules of Law"

Rule of Law Basso v. Miller

The rules of law are that the roads at "ICM" should have been maintained in a reasonably safe condition considering all circumstances. This shows good sense and should not vary with the status of the person in the park. This should be done with the foreseeability of the use and the injuries arising from using said roads.

Rules of Law Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue

You are allowed to use hearsay evidence when it is used to prove a triable fact and there is no other evidence. The manager knew about the spill, and because he knew about the spill and is an agent of the supermarket's owners the hearsay was allowed.

Why do you think the court reached its overall decision? This should be answered in a separate paragraph: "Analysis"

Analysis Basso v. Miller

The court in this case failed to instruct the jury properly on the duty of care owed to a licensee together with also rendering a general verdict, the court can't determine whether the charge was significant in determining allowance and allows a new trial.

Analysis Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue

The plaintiff and neighbor both overheard the store manager speaking to another employee saying the spill should have been cleaned prior to the fall. Also, liability in a slip and fall case must have actual knowledge of the dangerous condition prior to.

Conclusion Basso v. Miller

A new trial was ordered on the issue of liability against "ICM", it was also ordered that a new apportionment factor be determined between the plaintiff and "ICM", and to strike the issue that the plaintiff has judgement of liability against "ICM".

Conclusion Navedo v. 250 Willis Avenue

The case was overturned, the plaintiff had asked the store manager for a copy of the accident report which he failed to provide.