Identify 3-4 key facts, background fact and irrelevant fact in each of the hypotheticals presented at the beginning of Chapters 10, 11, and 12.

Key fact:

Key fact:

Key fact:

Background fact:

Irrelevant fact:

Ch 10

Ash's primary role is to conduct initial client interviews, prepare a summary of the interview, then assemble a legal memorandum containing an identification of the legal issues and an anaysis of the applicable law. Identifying the legal issue is often the trickiest part of the job. It did not seem, however, that it would be too much of a problem in Cari's case. Cari's home is across the street from Roosevelt Elementary School. Cari's best friend lives a block away and has a 7-year-old, Taylor, who attends school at Roosevelt. Last month, Cari was in the front yard planting tulips. It was lunchtime, and children were playing on the playground. Cari heard the crossing guard's whistle blow and tires squealing. Cari 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 Cari recognized was the carit was Briar's hot-rod Camaro. It looked like Briar was going too fast, lost control on the curve in the school zone, and crashed through the fence. Briar, a local teen, continually raced in the neighborhood. Several teachers complained to Briar's parents, who did nothing. Briar had received several speeding tickets. The second thing Cari noticed was that two children playing on the seesaw were injured. One of them was Taylor. Cari became extremely upset upon realizing who one of the injured children was. Since the wreck, Cari has had severe insomnia and extreme anxiety. Cari cannot sleep and has nightmares whenever sleep does occur. Cari's doctor prescribed medication for the anxiety and to help with sleep. Cari was also recently referred to a psychologist. Cari came to the law office Ash worked in seeking to recover the expenses incurred from the trauma of witnessing the terrible injuries to Taylor and the other child. After summarizing the interview, Ash focuses on the next task and asks, "What is the legal issue in this case?" The process of identifying the issue is the subject of this chapter. The Application section of this chapter discusses the answer to the question.

Ch 11

The partner in a law firm asked a paralegal to research whether evidence in a client's case could be suppressed. The paralegal was instructed to draft an interoffice memorandum on the issue within two days. After reviewing the case and conducting some research, the paralegal's focus turns to the significant facts relevant to the suppression-of-evidence issue. Several key facts were identified. The state police seized the evidence during the execution of a search warrant. A state court judge may have improperly issued the warrant because the state police did not present the court with sufficient probable cause to justify the search. This would mean the warrant was defective. The opposing side, the state, concedes that the warrant was improperly issued. However, officers did not know the warrant was defective and executed it in the good-faith belief that it was valid. The paralegal'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. The first decision the paralegal had to make was how to phrase the issue. The paralegal thought, "What is the proper format? What is the best way to effectively communicate precisely what is in dispute in this case? "The Application section of this chapter presents the answer to the latter question. The material discussed in this chapter prior to the Application section addresses the paralegal's other questions.

Ch 12

Two siblings, Logan and Parker, met with a law firm about the estate of their father, Dilbert Simms. Dilbert Simms died in December and left a plumbing business, Simms Plumbing, Inc., tohis three childrenLogan, Parker, and Taylor. Taylor, who had been running the business for the last two years, was left 52 percent of the stock. The other siblings, who had never worked at Simms Plumbing and were employed in other occupations, were each left 24 percent. As the majority shareholder, Taylor completely controls the business and to date has refused to issue stock dividends even though the corporation has an accumulated cash surplus of $750,000. Taylor has approved for herself three very large salary increases and several cash bonuses since the father's death. When questioned by the other two siblings about stock dividends, Taylor 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 work at the company, every day, just like I do. "After this conversation, the siblings consulted the supervising attorney at a law firm. They seek redress for the wrong they feel has been committed by Taylor refusing to issue dividends. The lawyer directs a paralegal to find the applicable statute and the leading case on point in the jurisdiction. The statute, 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 locates only one case dealing with oppressive conduct, Karl v. Herald. In this case, spouses owned a small corporation in which one spouse owned 75 percent of the stock and the other owned 25 percent. When they divorced, the majority shareholding spouse fired the other spouse from a salaried position of bookkeeper, took away the 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 majority shareholding spouse gave themself a hefty salary increase. The court held that oppressive conduct occurred in freezing the minority shareholding spouse 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. "Upon finding this case, several questions run through the paralegal's mind. Is this case on point? How does one determine if a case is on point? Why does it matter?