| Front | Peggy Lou filed a lawsuit against “We Fix ‘Em Rite”, an auto body shop, for the sloppy paint job it did on her 2000 BMW. Once the lawsuit was filed with the appropriate clerk of court, Peggy Lou personally dropped a copy of the lawsuit in the mail. “We Fix ‘Em” says it never received notice of the lawsuit. Local court rules require that a lawsuit be served by an independent process server or by the sheriff’s department. Is this an example of substantive law or procedural law? Explain the difference. |
| Back | This is an example of procedural law. It is the law that establishes the process for conducting the lawsuit. In this instance, the rule specifying the method and manner of service of process is to make sure that the defendant does in fact have notice of the lawsuit. The sheriff’s department or the process server would submit an affidavit to verify the defendant was given notice of the pending lawsuit. |
| Tags | Chapter2 |
| Front | When can a court issue a summary judgment? |
| Back | A summary judgment can be issued only when there are no disputes between the parties concerning material facts in the case. If that is the situation, the court can render a decision of law since no factual determinations need to be made by the court. An example of a dispute concerning a material fact would be when one side argues and can submit evidence that suggests the light was green at the time of the auto accident; and the other side can/does argues and submits its own evidence that suggests that the light was yellow!! |
| Tags | Chapter3 |
| Front | Laura Landowner visits Fred Halfbright, an attorney, with a problem. “My neighbor is intentionally letting his geese run over my property,” she says. “What can I do about it?” “Maybe you’ve got a suit for trespass to land,” Fred replies, “but let me do some research.” One week later, Fred tells Laura that there’s nothing he can do. “The doctrine of stare decisis says that like cases should be decided alike,” he says, “but I can’t find a real precedent for your case. I’ve been able to find intentional trespass cases involving sheep, goats, and even chickens, but I can’t find a goose case.” Has Fred intelligently applied the doctrine of stare decisis? Why or why not? |
| Back | No, Fred has not intelligently applied the doctrine of stare decisis. The tort of intentional trespass to land presumably exists to enable people to control conditions on the land they own (which should include a right to exclude intruders). If this is the relevant purpose, and there is a liability for trespassers by the various animals described earlier, why shouldn’t there also be liability for trespassers by geese? In other words, Fred has made what lawyers call an artificial distinction: one without a point, purpose, or moral justification. In this context, what’s the difference between intrusion by chickens and intrusion by geese? (None really.) |
| Tags | Chapter2 |