Case Analysis 2 Fact Patterns

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

For each fact pattern, specify the essential legal issue(s) involved, describe the legal concepts from the text, decide which side should win, and explain your reasoning and how you used the legal concepts to arrive at your decision. See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing this assignment.

1. Chris Rock v. Larry the Cable Guy
Larry the Cable Guy and Chris Rock decided to go on a “laugh tour” together. They believed that with Larry’s redneck humor and Chris’ urban jokes, they could pack the venues with twice as many fans. They made millions of dollars. Soon thereafter, they split up as an act; however, Larry continued to use some of the material that was written by Chris. While they were a duo act, they had contractually agreed that if they ever broke up, they would not use each other’s material without payment. Larry has not paid Chris anything for the use of his comic material, so Chris is suing him in civil court for breach of contract and asking the court to award him $500,000 in unpaid fees for the use of his material. To notify Larry that he is a defendant in a breach of contract lawsuit, the court has twice attempted to serve a summons and complaint at Larry’s permanent residence. Because Larry frequently travels with his act, he was not found at home. The process server petitioned the court for alternative service and it was granted. Larry was thereby sent the complaint and summons by certified mail, and notification of the suit was also published for two weeks in the local newspaper. Larry knows he has been violating the contract with Chris, and that sooner-or-later he would be sued; therefore, he never accepts certified letters or reads the local paper. Needless to say, Larry never responded to the suit. After six months have elapsed, Chris motioned for a default judgment in his favor for $500,000 and court costs, and this motion was granted. Now Larry is appealing this default judgment because he was not properly notified of the suit against him. In your analysis, discuss whether you would you affirm or reverse the default judgment?

2. W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company
W.R. Reeves filed suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act against his employer, Central of Georgia Railway Company, seeking damages he allegedly suffered when the train on which he was working derailed near Griffin, Georgia. The liability of the defendant railroad was established at trial, and the issue of damages remained to be fixed. Several physicians testified, as did Reeves. On the witness stand, he said that an examining physician had told him that he would be unable to work because of a weakness in his right arm, a dead place on his arm, stiffness in his neck, and nerve trouble in his back. Is the admission of this testimony reversible error (i.e., the testimony should not have been allowed)? In your analysis, be sure to include legal reasoning as to why the testimony should or should not be used.

3. Paris Hilton v.Lindsey Lohan
Paris Hilton, a resident of Beverly Hills, and Lindsey Lohan, a fellow Californian, had an agreement. Lindsey agreed to give Paris the right to party in the VIP lounges of any club in California on Saturday nights. In exchange, Paris would give Lindsey the same right, but on Friday nights. This way, the two would not have to compete for the attention of the paparazzi. Earlier this year, on a day when Lindsey was scheduled to appear in court and possibly be sent to jail, Paris decided to party in California on a Friday. She figured Lindsey could not party due to her court troubles and probable incarceration. Lindsey in fact went to the clubs on Friday, but many of the photographers were already covering Paris and did not have the time to take photos of Lindsey. Lindsey has filed a lawsuit against Paris alleging breach of contract. She heard the kind folks in Texas really liked her, so she filed her lawsuit there to get a favorable jury. The sheriff, a huge fan, was nice enough to drive out to California to deliver the summons and complaint to Paris. Unfortunately, Paris was not home, so he placed it in the mail box, and went on a tour of the stars’ homes. When Paris found the lawsuit, she read it and ripped it into small pieces. Paris has not responded to the lawsuit, and Lindsey has moved for a default and default judgment. The judge doesn’t like Paris, and thinks she is a spoiled brat, so he granted the default judgment. He awarded Lindsey damages in the amount of $100,000. Is he correct? If Paris hires an attorney to respond to the lawsuit, what arguments should she make?

Sample Solution

Chris Rock v. Larry the Cable Guy

The essential legal issue in this case is whether Larry was properly served with the lawsuit. The legal concept involved is the doctrine of due process, which requires that a person be given notice of a lawsuit and an opportunity to be heard before a judgment can be entered against them.

In this case, Larry was served with the lawsuit by certified mail and by publication in the local newspaper. However, he never responded to the lawsuit. Larry argues that he was not properly served because he never accepted the certified mail and he never read the newspaper.

The court will likely find that Larry was properly served. The law does not require that a person actually read the notice of a lawsuit in order to be considered served. As long as the notice was sent to the person’s last known address in a manner that is reasonably likely to be seen by them, then they will be considered served.

In this case, the certified mail was sent to Larry’s permanent residence. This is his last known address, and it is a reasonable place to send the notice of a lawsuit. Additionally, the notice was published in the local newspaper. This is another reasonable way to serve someone with a lawsuit, especially if the person is frequently traveling.

Therefore, the court will likely affirm the default judgment against Larry. He was properly served with the lawsuit, and he failed to respond. As a result, he is liable for the damages that Chris Rock is seeking.

2. W.R. Reeves v. Central of Georgia Railway Company

The essential legal issue in this case is whether the testimony of the examining physician should have been admitted into evidence. The legal concept involved is the rule against hearsay, which prohibits the admission of out-of-court statements as evidence unless they fall within one of the exceptions to the rule.

In this case, the examining physician’s statement that Reeves would be unable to work was an out-of-court statement. This statement is not admissible as evidence because it is not an exception to the rule against hearsay.

The only exception that might apply is the medical diagnosis exception. However, this exception only applies to statements made by a medical professional about the patient’s diagnosis. The examining physician’s statement about Reeves’s ability to work is not a medical diagnosis, and therefore it is not admissible as evidence.

As a result, the admission of the examining physician’s statement was reversible error. The court should have excluded this statement from evidence, and the verdict should be reversed.

3. Paris Hilton v. Lindsey Lohan

The essential legal issue in this case is whether the default judgment against Paris Hilton is valid. The legal concept involved is the doctrine of due process, which requires that a person be given notice of a lawsuit and an opportunity to be heard before a judgment can be entered against them.

In this case, Paris Hilton was not given notice of the lawsuit. The sheriff placed the summons and complaint in her mailbox, but she never saw it. As a result, she did not have an opportunity to be heard before the default judgment was entered against her.

The court will likely find that the default judgment is invalid. Paris Hilton was not given notice of the lawsuit, and therefore she was not given an opportunity to be heard. As a result, the default judgment must be reversed.

If Paris Hilton hires an attorney to respond to the lawsuit, her attorney will likely argue the following points:

  • Paris Hilton was not given notice of the lawsuit.
  • The sheriff did not make a reasonable effort to serve Paris Hilton with the lawsuit.
  • Paris Hilton was not given an opportunity to be heard before the default judgment was entered.

If the court agrees with these arguments, then the default judgment will

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?