In their book Think Critically, Facione and Gittens offer a simple mnemonic device that can help you think critically. They advocate the IDEA model:

Identify the problem and set priorities

Deepen understanding and gather relevant information

Enumerate options and anticipate consequences

Assess the situation and make a preliminary decision

The IDEA model is actually a great way to think critically about the law. This exercise will provide one or more legal problems, and your task will be to use the IDEA model to analyze the issues presented to you.

This assignment is particularly designed to require you to engage in critical thinking, problem solving, and analysis. Although this is not a creative writing assignment, you should think openly and creatively about the cases and their application to the scenario given in this assignment. Although you should use only the cases provided to you, please feel free to fill in any missing facts that are necessary for your project, and please state any assumptions are you are making regarding these facts.

Scoring well on this assignment takes a lot of thought and work, a minimum of 10 hours for most students. Failure to put time, thought, and effort into this project will result in a very low grade (e.g., < 30%). Conversely, some students may earn 100%.

General Background

Defamation is a legal cause of action based on injury to another person's reputation. However, not all injuries to a person's representation are valid causes of action, and the person being injured must prove specific elements in court in order to prevail. In general, as the attached cases show, the elements of a claim for defamation are as follows:

• A false and defamatory statement was made about another person
• The statement was made to a third party without sufficient justification
• The person making the statement at least knew or should have known that making the statement would cause harm to the other person
• The person about whom the statement was made was harmed as a result
• Additional Requirement for Public Figures Only: If the statement involves a statement about facts concerning a public figure, then the public figure must show "actual malice," or intentional conduct, by the person making the statement in order to prevail at trial. (A private person can be considered a "limited public figure" under certain circumstances.)

Each state may have its own variation on the above general rules. The attached cases set forth some applications of the above law to some specific scenarios in Minnesota (the state we are using for the exercise). You should not do outside research in order to complete the assignment, and you must use all of the cases provided to you. You should assume that all cases are still valid law, unless otherwise stated in the versions of the cases provided to you as part of the assignment.

The Scenario - Minnesota

John Wicker is the President and CEO of NM Enterprises Inc., a company that sells New Mexico green chile products in the state of Minnesota. Most or all of the company's activities take place in Minnesota, except perhaps the transport of chiles from New Mexico to Minnesota.

In addition to selling his company's products, in his spare time outside of his work for the business, John Wicker also conducts public awareness campaigns about the dangers of cigarette smoking. This is not related to the business of NM Enterprises Inc.

Maria Larue is a private citizen and resident of the State of Minnesota. She recently created a "public service campaign" in order to tell citizens about the dangers of eating green chile. She claims that green chile is bad for Minnesotans' health, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate her claim. She has created, among other things, a website stating the following about NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker:

1. "NM Enterprises Inc. is an immoral company.
2. "NM Enterprises Inc.'s green chiles are linked to autism rates in young children."
3. "Green chile is bad for your health."
4. "John Wicker is a philanderer and has had several extramarital affairs with staff."
5. "John Wicker has lost his mind and cannot manage his company."
6. "Consumers have filed dozens of complaints against NM Enterprises Inc. since 2017."
7. "John Wicker is a smoker and a hypocrite."

NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker disagree with all of the above statements, and there is no information in the company or John Wicker's possession to support the factual portions of these statements. NM Enterprises Inc. believes that Maria Larue is simply doing making these statements because she is prejudiced against New Mexico and does not believe that it should be part of the United States. NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker also suspect that Maria Larue may wish to set up a business that competes with NM Enterprises Inc.

NM Enterprises Inc.'s annual net income for the past few years has been $5, million per year. If these types of statements continue, NM Enterprises Inc. is projected to lose at least 10% of its net income in Minnesota, and John Wicker may be forced to resign from the company, losing his salary and benefits totaling approximately $400,000 per year. NM Enterprises Inc. and John Wicker would like to file a lawsuit against Maria Larue, in order to stop her from engaging in this type of behavior in the future. However, they are not entirely sure how to do so, given the complexity of the law regarding defamation.

1. Identify the legal issues in this case, based on similarity to the cases already provided to you. (Hint: There are many legal issues to be found.)
2. Identify both sides of the legal issue, including what each side is likely to argue. (Remember, each and every legal issue is seen or argued differently, depending on what side of the issue you are on. Here, you will need to argue both sides of each)
3. Identify the potential options as to how these issues may be resolved, including any legal and non-legal options. (This includes not only the cases provided but also your general experience as a businessperson.)
4. Conclude the discussion by describing what you believe the outcome of the situation should be, including your opinion as to how a court should rule if it has to decide this issue. Your outcome should be based on the reasoning from one or more of the cases in the assignment.