Sequence of thoughts (Legal Writing)

1. Sequence of thoughts

2. Rearrange the sentences to
improve the sequence

3. The Supreme Court reversed the
Court of Appeal’s affirmance of a
summary judgment granted to
Pilsen Corporation, the plaintiff,
which had only requested a partial
summary judgment on the
discrete issue of fraud. (33 words)

4. 1. Pilsen sued defendant in lower court.
2. Pilsen raised the discrete issue of fraud and
prayed for partial summary judgment.
3. Lower court made summary judgment in
favor of Pilsen.
4. Defendant appealed to CA.
5. CA affirmed lower court.
6. Defendant elevated case to SC.
7. SC reversed CA on the ground that plaintiff
only prayed for partial summary judgment on
the issue of fraud.

5. The Court of Appeals affirmed a
summary judgment granted to
plaintiff Pilsen Corp. The Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Appeals
on the ground that plaintiff had only
requested a partial summary
judgment on the discrete issue of
fraud. (39 words)

6. The issue is whether Meralco has
granted its neighbors an easement to
use a private road that enters a Meralco
fuel-storage yard, when for three years
Meralco has had a guard at the road's
entrance but has posted no other notice
about private property or permission to
enter, and for seven years the owners of
adjacent property have used the road to
reach their own property. (67 words)

7. For the past seven years neighbors used
Meralco’s private road inside its storage yard to
access their property. Three years ago Meralco
posted a guard at the road's entrance but posted
no other notice about private property or
permission to enter. The issue is whether
Meralco has granted its neighbors an easement.
(52 words)

8. The court awarded the niece of Madrigal a
constructive trust. Madrigal's niece was suing
Madrigal estate for one-half interest in property that
she claimed her uncle owned and had promised to
bequeath to her in exchange for caring for him until
his death. The court observed that the property was
purchased in his sister's name. This was done for
business purposes and because he and his sister
shared a close relationship. There was also an
agreement between the siblings that the sister would
be allowed to keep only half the property. The court
ruled that withholding the property from the niece
would be a breach of promise; hence, a constructive
trust was awarded in favor of the niece. (118 words)

9. 1) The niece looked after Uncle until his death;
2) She claimed that Uncle promised to give her half of a property upon his
death as a reward for her care;
3) Uncle died; family of Uncle refused to comply claiming that Uncle does
not have any property; Niece sued, claiming that the property belongs
to Uncle;
4) Court ruled that Uncle actually owns the property (although titled under
sister’s name) because a) it was done for business purpose, and b)
because of close relationship with Uncle’s sister
5) Furthermore, the court found that there was an agreement between the
siblings that the sister would be allowed to keep only half the property;
6) Therefore, it would be a breach of promise not to give something to the
niece;
7) The court ruled that a Constructive Trust exists.

10. Mr. Madrigal's niece was suing his estate for
property which she claimed that he owned. She claimed
that he promised to bequeath to her half of his property in
exchange for caring for him until his death. The court
observed that the property was purchased in his sister's
name for business purposes and because they shared a
close relationship. There was also an agreement between
the siblings that the sister would be allowed to keep only
half the property. Thus, the court ruled that withholding
the property from the niece would be a breach of promise;
hence, a constructive trust was awarded in favor of the
niece. (107 words)

11. At no time prior to the initial public
offering did the underwriters or any
officers, directors, or employees have
knowledge of any facts that would suggest
that "Palmera Residence" could not be
completed on schedule and in accordance
with specifications. (40 words)

12. Before the initial public offering, the
underwriters and the officers, directors, and
employees believed that "Palmera Residence"
would be completed on schedule and in
accordance with specifications. (28 words)

13. Biazon has wholly failed to allege facts that, if
true, would establish that competition among
the nation's law schools would be reduced or
that the public has been in any way injured,
and this failure to allege facts that would
establish an injury warrants the dismissal of
his restraint-of-trade claim. (52 words)

14. Biazon has wholly failed to allege facts to
show that competition among the nation's
law schools would be reduced or that the
public had been injured. This failure to
show an injury warrants the dismissal of
his restraint-of-trade claim. (39 words)

15. There is case law for the
proposition that use restrictions
are not always strictly enforced
when a lease is assigned by a
tenant in bankruptcy and the
property in question is not part of
a shopping center. (37 words)

16. Analysis of the Statement
What is the proposition?
“use restrictions are not always
strictly enforced”
Under what conditions?
a)when a lease is assigned by a tenant in
bankruptcy ; and
b)When the property in question is not
part of a shopping center.

17. When a lease is assigned by a tenant
in bankruptcy and the property is not part
of a shopping center, use restrictions are
not always strictly enforced. This is borne
out by case law. (34 words)

18. Jurisprudence states that when a
lease is assigned by a tenant in
bankruptcy and the property is not
part of a shopping center, use
restrictions are not always strictly
enforced. (30 words)

19. Arbitration as a means of
settling disputes was at first
viewed by the courts with
much disfavor, but today is
being used increasingly as a
substitute for litigation for the
adjudication of disputes
arising out of contracts.
(37 words)

20. At first, courts viewed Arbitration
with much disfavor, but today it is
being increasingly used in lieu of
litigation for breach of contract
disputes. (24 words)

21. To say that one who has contracted to serve
for a number of years at a low salary or at
distasteful work and seeks to better his or
her condition by a contract with another
party should be penalized in every case by
inability to enforce this second contract
seems harsh, and under these or other
extenuating circumstances, the courts have
often deemed damages to be sufficient
recompense to the injured employer
without also invalidating the second
contract. (78 words)

22. Analysis:
1)A person has contracted to serve for a number of
years at a low salary or at distasteful work.
2)He seeks to better (improve) his or her
condition by a contract with another party.
3)He was penalized for breach of contract.
4)This inability to enforce this second contract
seems harsh [to the courts].
5)Under these or other extenuating
circumstances, the courts have often deemed
[award of] damages to be sufficient recompense to
the injured employer without also invalidating the
second contract.

23. In a situation where a worker entered into a
second contract seeking to improve his
condition, the penalty of voiding the second
contract seems harsh. Under these or other
extenuating circumstances, the courts have
often deemed it sufficient to award damages to
the injured employer without invalidating the
second contract. (50 words)

24. Use effective punctuation or
break into shorter sentences
to facilitate reading.
Try to use as many of the
original words as possible.

25. The court of appeals noted that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) had already issued the applicant a
National Pollution Elimination System permit for the actual
discharge of wastewater, which would occur from the outfall
pipe, and that the issuance and conditions of such permits
were generally exempt under the Clean Water Act from
compliance with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
requirement, and accordingly the court concluded that the
Corps had properly excluded the environmental implications
of the discharges from the outfall pipe from its analysis and
instead considered only the construction and maintenance of
the pipeline itself in determining that the issuance of the
permit did not constitute a major federal action. [112 words]

26. The court of appeals noted that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) had already issued the applicant a National Pollution
Elimination System Permit for the actual discharge of wastewater
(which would occur from the outfall pipe); and that the issuance
and conditions of such permits were generally exempt under the
Clean Water Act (from compliance with the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) requirement). Accordingly, the court found that
the Corps had properly excluded the environmental implications
of the discharges from the outfall pipe from its analysis. It thus
considered only the construction and maintenance of the pipeline
itself and concluded that issuing the permit did not constitute a
major federal action. [106 words]

27. Some time subsequent thereto defendant, Ben Cruz,
picked up a lightly built wood-and-canvas lawn chair
that was then and there located in the back yard of the
above described premises, moved it sideways a few
feet and seated himself therein, at which time he
discovered that the plaintiff, Ruth Garcia, was about to
sit down at the place where the lawn chair had
formerly been, at which time he hurriedly got up from
the chair and attempted to move it toward Ruth Garcia
to aid her in sitting down in the chair, whereupon, due
to the defendant's small size and lack of dexterity, he
was unable to get the lawn chair under the plaintiff in
time to prevent her from falling to the ground.
(126 words)

28. Some time after, defendant Ben Cruz, picked up a
lightly built wood-and-canvas lawn chair that was
located in the back yard of the premises, moved it
sideways a few feet and sat on it. He then saw
that the plaintiff, Ruth Garcia, was about to sit
down at the place where the lawn chair had been.
He hurriedly got up and attempted to move it to
its former position. Because defendant was small
and lacked dexterity, he was unable to get the
chair under the plaintiff in time to prevent her
from falling. (96 words)