Go Back   United Bimmer Community - BMW Forum > UnitedBimmer- Off Topic > United Off Topic  **FOR MEMBERS ONLY**
FAQ Members List Calendar Advertise With Us Mark Forums Read

United Off Topic  **FOR MEMBERS ONLY** Chat about whatever! Off-topic chat forum. (Be sure to appropriately title posts that are NWS) You must be registred and logged in to see sub-forums

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-29-2005, 02:06 AM   #1
komodo
 
komodo's Avatar

Name: komodo
Title: Administrator
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Athens, GA
Rate My Car: 68 / 340
Your Ride: 1995 M3
Curious About What a Law Final Exam Looks Like?

Here is the exact text from a Law class final exam at the University of Texas. I'm not sure which exact law class it's from, but you get the point:

Quote:
100 percent of your grade.

QUESTION: Smith owns a home adjacent to a train station in the small town of Bixby, in the State of Gray, USA. The station is used exclusively by the Rocky Mountain Ry. Co., who leases it from the town of Bixby. Smith sues Rocky and the town of Bixby. Smith sues Rocky and the town of Bixby in Gray superior court, seeking an injunction to shut down rail traffic in and out of the station. Smith’s complaint alleges as grounds for the injunction that the noise, dirt, and danger from train traffic to him and to other Bixby residents amounts to a private nuisance. For all purposes relevant to this question, the state courts of Gray administer rules of civil procedure identical in language to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The town of Bixby filled an answer in the case denying Smith’s allegations. However, the Bixby town attorney has made it clear that there are other legal matters that are more important to the town that this lawsuit, and that the town’s participation in the lawsuit will be minimal. Rocky participated vigorously as a ? for the first fifteen months of the lawsuit by answering, filing numerous papers, conducting extensive discovery, and defending at trial. Then, however, the court ruled that Smith was entitled to an injunction.

The management of Rocky decided at that point that, while it was willing to continue service in and out of the Bixby station, the value of traffic to the train company was not sufficient to justify further expense in litigating the Smith case. Therefore Rocky will not appeal the case to the Gray Supreme Court. After initial decision, the Bixby Town Attorney did file a notice of appeal, but expects to limit his argument to that injunction should not have been granted to a two page memorandum filed with the Gray Supreme Court.

After Bixby filed its notice of appeal and before the time for taking an appeal had passed, Crestline Products Co. filed an application to intervene. Crestline accompanied its application with a proposed notice of appeal and a proposed answer. In its proposed answer, Crestline took the same position with reference to Smith’s complaint that Bixby and Rocky had in their answers. Crestline applies for intervention of right or (alternatively) for permissive intervention. Crestline operates a furniture factory within a few miles of Bixby. Crestline maintains that it depends entirely on Rock’s rail service into the Bixby station for materials used in its factory, and that it depends entirely on rail service out of Bixby station to move finished furniture to its wholesale customers.

Bixby and Rocky take no position concerning Crestline’s application to intervene. Smith opposes it. Smith argues that Crestline has no right to intervene because it applied late, and because its interests are already adequately represented by one or more of the parties presently in the case. Smith argues that Crestline is not entitled to permissive intervention because Crestline’s intervention will not promote judicial economy.

Evaluate Crestline’s application. Should Crestline be permitted to intervene? Why or why not? Discuss.
Anyone have an answer? haha
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 02:22 AM   #2
komodo
 
komodo's Avatar

Name: komodo
Title: Administrator
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Athens, GA
Rate My Car: 68 / 340
Your Ride: 1995 M3
And here's another law exam... semi-logic problem, semi-law problem:

Quote:
X was seriously injured when the hang glider he was flying crashed. X intends to sue Y, owner of a local sporting goods store where he purchased the hang glider. He plans to sue Y for damages for his injuries, upon a theory of product liability. The suit will be in a state court in Sycamore, USA. Sycamore is where X and Y reside and where the accident occurred.
Y purchased the hang glider from the manufacturer, Z. It is the only hang glider that Y purchased for sale in the store. Y does not intend to stock hang gliders in the future. Should it become liable upon a judgment to X, Y will seek indemnification from Z. Z sells a large volume of hang gliders in Sycamore -- some through independent retailers like Y and some through direct sales to consumers at its Sycamore factory.
X will claim in its suit against Y that the crash occurred because the hang glider was defectively and unsafely designed. Y's case will be that, if the jury finds as a matter of fact that X was attempting to operate the hang glider in a way that posed an open and obvious danger, X cannot recover even if the product was designed improperly. This is a case of first impression in the Sycamore state courts. That is, Sycamore courts have not previously been presented with the question whether a finding that a product was used in such a way as to create an open and obvious danger bars product liability recovery. The question has reached the highest court in six other states. In three such cases, the courts ruled that a finding that a product was used in a way creating an open and obvious danger did not bar product liability recovery. In the other three, the courts ruled that such a finding was an absolute bar to product liability recovery. Should X's case reach the Sycamore Supreme Court, that court's decision either way, on whether a finding that the product was used in a way creating an open and obvious danger bars product liability recovery, will probably be binding on subsequent Sycamore cases for years to come.
Assume for this question (except as modified only in Part Three, below) that Sycamore state courts use rules of civil procedure that are the same as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Assume also that X, Y and Z could all be made parties in this Sycamore case so far as the court's personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and venue are concerned.
The question is divided into five parts. Remember to separate each part clearly and to answer the parts in the order in which they are presented.
Part One
Assume the following only for this Part. X wishes to make a product liability claim in this case against Y, and X also wishes to make a product liability claim against Z. Can X make both of these claims in his case? What is X's best arguments? Will they succeed? Why or why not?
Part Two
Assume the following only for this Part. X sues only Y in X's product liability case. Neither X or Y wish to add Z as a party. However, Z learns of the case and wishes to make itself a party? Can Z do so? What are Z's best arguments? Will they succeed? Why or why not?
Part Three
Assume the following only for this Part. Sycamore has adopted for use by its state courts all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except Rule 14. Consequently, no authority exists in Sycamore state court for joining a party by impleader. (Remember, even in this part, all of the other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are in use in Sycamore state court.) Assume also that X sues only Y in X's product liability case and that Z does not want to be a party in the case. Y wishes to bring Z into the case as an additional defendant. Can Y do so? What are Y's best arguments? Will they succeed? Why or why not? DON'T FORGET. IMPLEADER IS MISSING FROM THE SYCAMORE STATE RULES OF PROCEDURE ONLY IN THIS PART.
Part Four
Assume the following only for this Part. X sues only Y in X's product liability case. Neither X nor Y wishes to add Z as a party. Nor does Z wish to be a party in the case. X's case against Y proceeds to trial. The jury found there that at X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. On the basis of this finding, the Sycamore Supreme Court ruled that X could not recover, and the court entered judgment in favor of Y and against X. The judgment has been affirmed on appeal and is now final. Assume further that X now brings a product liability case against Z for injuries in the hang glider accident. Z's position is (first) that the issue, whether X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger, was determined against X in X's prior case against Y, and (second) that that determination is binding on X in X's subsequent case against Z. X's position is that he is free to relitigate in his case against Z the question whether X was in fact operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. What are the best arguments on both sides? Who should win? Why?
Part Five
Assume the following only for this Part. X sues only Y in X's product liability case and Z does not wish to be a party in the case. Y impleads Z. Z does not object to impleader. X does not amend to add a claim against Z. At trial, Z works with Y to attempt to prove the X was operating the hang glider to as to create an open and obvious danger. After trial, the jury found that X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. On the basis of this finding, the Sycamore Supreme Court ruled that X could not recover, and the court entered judgment in favor of Y and against X. The judgment has been affirmed on appeal and is now final. Assume further that X now brings a product liability case against Z for injuries in the hang glider accident. Z's position is (first) that the issue, whether X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger, was determined against X in X's prior case against Y, and (second) that that determination is binding on X in X's subsequent case against Z. X's position is that he is free to relitigate in his case against Z the question whether X was in fact operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. What are the best arguments on both sides? Who should win? Why?
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 02:59 AM   #3
donald1476

Name: donald1476
Title: President
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: petaluma, ca.
Rate My Car: 109 / 340
I know nothing about Law, I'm just posting to hit 1K posts.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 03:09 AM   #4
Chris
 
Chris's Avatar

Name: Chris
Title: Visiting Mod
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
User not setup in Rate My Car.
Click here to set it up.
Your Ride: Whatever I can get my hands on
i don't know about y'all, but i'd rather take the first one, the second one is complicated as balls.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 03:24 AM   #5
komodo
 
komodo's Avatar

Name: komodo
Title: Administrator
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Athens, GA
Rate My Car: 68 / 340
Your Ride: 1995 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisdoesntknow
i don't know about y'all, but i'd rather take the first one, the second one is complicated as balls.
I have no clue on either.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 09:55 AM   #6
Red_Rocket
 
Red_Rocket's Avatar

Name: Red_Rocket
Title: Senior Member
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Coeur D' Alene, ID
Rate My Car: 214 / 340
Your Ride: E30 325
no thanks, law is not for me,
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 02:17 PM   #7
DEATH2000
 
DEATH2000's Avatar

Name: DEATH2000
Title: Moderator
Status: Offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Rate My Car: 111 / 340
Your Ride: 1998 E36 328i sedan
I say for the first one, Smith doesnt have enough grounds for a case. Depending on what type of rail traffic (passenger,frieght) goes through the station it should stay operational.

And for the second queston. X would do best by suing Y, and thenhaving Y sue Z, or X suing Z directly for a ddefective product. Trying to sue both Y and Z would not be in X'x best intrests because the court would most likely rule for X only against on or the other (Y or Z),not both.
__________________


VIEW MY E36 BLOG HERE

New to United Bimmer? Check out our Introductions and Greetings Section and introduce yourself today!

E36 Bentley Manual PDF download avilable HERE
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 03:06 PM   #8
DEATH2000
 
DEATH2000's Avatar

Name: DEATH2000
Title: Moderator
Status: Offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Rate My Car: 111 / 340
Your Ride: 1998 E36 328i sedan
Quote:
Assume the following only for this Part. X sues only Y in X's product liability case. Neither X nor Y wishes to add Z as a party. Nor does Z wish to be a party in the case. X's case against Y proceeds to trial. The jury found there that at X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. On the basis of this finding, the Sycamore Supreme Court ruled that X could not recover, and the court entered judgment in favor of Y and against X. The judgment has been affirmed on appeal and is now final. Assume further that X now brings a product liability case against Z for injuries in the hang glider accident. Z's position is (first) that the issue, whether X was operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger, was determined against X in X's prior case against Y, and (second) that that determination is binding on X in X's subsequent case against Z. X's position is that he is free to relitigate in his case against Z the question whether X was in fact operating the hang glider so as to create an open and obvious danger. What are the best arguments on both sides? Who should win? Why?
If X was operating the glider inproperly and agaisnt manufacturers saftery guidlines then he has no case agianst Z, and then as well Y should not be held respoinsoble as well. And if X went to court against Y and the court found in favour of Y because he was operating the glider in an open and obvious danger, and then tried to go to court against Z, the ruling against X in the case of X vs Y, will affect the ruling agianst X. X should be free to relitigate agianst Z, but if X was operating it to create and open and obvious danger than that will go against X's ruling and most likely the court will find in favout of Z.
__________________


VIEW MY E36 BLOG HERE

New to United Bimmer? Check out our Introductions and Greetings Section and introduce yourself today!

E36 Bentley Manual PDF download avilable HERE
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 03:25 PM   #9
EnvyM3
 
EnvyM3's Avatar

Name: EnvyM3
Title: DSC OFF!
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Manchester, NH
User not setup in Rate My Car.
Click here to set it up.
Your Ride: 2005 545i SMG
Man I'm glad I'm done with school. Too much to read.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2005, 11:31 PM   #10
delmarco
 
delmarco's Avatar

Name: delmarco
Title: The Way A Man Should Be
Status: Offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greystone, NY
Rate My Car: 227 / 340
Your Ride: 2001 330i
Did someone say Law????

that easy stuff....
we do shit like that all the time.

The hardest part of it is when the prof reads it aloud in class and picks on you to answer...and you got 2 seconds to start talking or you fail!

in fact that is why you don't see Delmarco much around here anymore!
__________________


VISIT MY GARAGE TO SEE ALL MY MODS:

http://directory.e46fanatics.com/use...rMod&UcId=7917
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rest in Peace Law komodo United Off Topic  **FOR MEMBERS ONLY** 18 02-22-2006 08:20 AM
Floridas new law DEATH2000 Southeast Region 18 06-09-2005 11:29 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 PM.

A vBSkinworks Design

 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2005-2013 UnitedBimmer.com