• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Libr 430 Week 8
 

Libr 430 Week 8

on

  • 588 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
588
Views on SlideShare
256
Embed Views
332

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 332

http://calstatela.libguides.com 277
http://www.calstatela.libguides.com 55

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Libr 430 Week 8 Libr 430 Week 8 Presentation Transcript

    • LIBR 430 WEEK 8 Synthesizing Legal Information
    • Analogies & Distinctions
      • Case comparison is based on the premise that like cases should be decided in like manner
      • Making valid predictions involves drawing analogies from similar cases
        • Similar issues, possibly fact patterns
        • Applicable reasoning & policy statements
    • When Reasoning, Discussing and Writing
      • Demonstrate that the case is binding legal authority
      • Assure the reader that the facts you’re comparing were key facts in the decided case
      • Give reader enough information to make independent comparison
    • Analyzing Multiple Cases
      • Multiple cases might address a particular issue but with many different variations
      • Precedents oftentimes has different fact patterns to client’s case and one another with different results
      • Goal: Reconcile diverse results and advise client on the predicted outcome
    • Synthesis
      • Purpose – to find collective meaning in cases
      • Rules of law are clarified through multiple cases
      • Involves more than listing cases
    • When to Synthesize
      • No express definition of an element
      • Rule not expressly stated
      • Definition is vague
      • Cases analogized don’t address all the determinative facts
      • Several cases are all relevant in some way
      • Cannot fully understand a rule of law from just one case
      • After reviewing several cases, communicate the standards the court will apply
      • Collective legal proposition more important than a list of case briefs
      Why Synthesize
    • Synthesis is a Common Process
      • We synthesize information daily
      • Creating a chart may help, especially if it is a complex issue
      • Synthesis can be a difficult skill that requires practice
      • Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land to smell his award winning roses.
      • Held: Neighbor liable for trespass
      Example
    • Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a mob of angry bees. Held: Neighbor not liable for trespass.
    • Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a swarm of angry bees. While evading his pursuers, neighbor accidentally tramples on Mr. Jones' award winning roses. Held: Neighbor liable for damages to roses.
    • What do the Three Cases Stand for Collectively? A. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land to smell his award winning roses. Held: Neighbor liable for trespass. B. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a swarm of angry bees. Held: Neighbor not liable for trespass. C. Neighbor ignores a sign warning trespassers to keep out and enters Mr. Jones' land seeking to escape a swarm of angry bees. While evading his pursuers, Neighbor accidentally tramples on Mr. Jones' award winning roses. Held: Professor Berry liable for damages to roses.
    • Look for the Common Threads
      • In each case, Neighbor was trespassing on someone’s land without permission, but the results were different
      • The decision maker considered different factors to modify the rule.
    • How?
      • The proposition in the first case is that a person is liable for trespass if they enter someone’s land without permission
    • How?
      • The second case modifies the rule established in the first case. A person is relieved of liability from trespass when it is necessary to protect oneself from physical danger.
    • How Cont’d.
      • This case refines the rule further. When someone trespasses out of necessity, they are still liable for any actual damage to the property.
    • Sample Chart No, but liable for property damage Yes Yes C. Yes No No Yes B. Yes Yes No No A. Yes Liable for Trespass Property Damage Necessity Trespass
    • What’s the collective meaning?
      • "A person who enters the land of another without permission is liable for trespass except where entry is necessary to avoid physical danger, in which case a person is liable only for actual damage to the property."
    • Using the Factors
      • Identifying the factors
        • Factors – categories of facts the court considers to decide an issue
        • Elements are conditions that must be present, but factors are guidelines the court will consider
    • First, Find the Common Threads
      • Identify the common threads in the cases
      • Look for patterns that explain the holding
        • A particular fact
        • Combination of factors
        • Policy considerations
        • Once locate pattern, easier to locate the factors
    • After Locating Common Threads
      • Tie the common threads together
        • The synthesized rule should reflect the different cases, definitions, limitations and exceptions, in a coherent statement
      • Organize your analysis around the common threads, not the individual cases
      • Apply synthesized rule to facts on hand