Part 1: Analysis of Mini-Cases.
Read the three Mini-Case studies carefully; each case has one significant Defined Term Issue applicable to the precise facts of the Mini-Case. Identify and analyze the main Issue of each case using the IRAC format. Explain why the Defined Term applies to the specific facts. The define term is listed in the chart located in the attachments. While other Terms may also apply under the facts, only one Term supports the Motion or action detailed in the facts and is the main focus in the Mini-Case Assignment. Analyze any other questions associated with each case study.
Apply your case Analysis using the IRAC Format form. Complete your answers by filling in the questions on the IRAC Worksheet located within the attachment section. Download a separate Worksheet for each case study with your answers.
Part 2: Operation of Legal Terms.
Use the Defined Terms in the Chart (DOCX) to explain and compare the legal relationship between the following Defined Terms: Justiciability; Standing; Venue; and Jurisdiction. All the defined terms in the chart may not be defined and may require additional research. Use Statutory definitions and Case Analysis or other legal resources and explain the definitions and relationship of the operation of the terms and their impact on a case, collectively or against each other in a Civil Case. Support all responses with Primary Legal Authoritative Citations. Apply your Defined Term Analysis using the IRAC Format form comparing and Analyzing each Term: Justiciability; Standing; Venue, and Jurisdiction. The IRAC comparison must distinguish the relationship of each Term to the other and whether they are independently determined or dependent on each other.
- XYA Corporation discovered that ZZZ Inc., a competitor, is producing a new widget gadget. XYA believed that the widget gadget contained parts owned by XYA under their patent. XYA filed a lawsuit in Federal Court asking for expedited review to grant an injunction against ZZZ to stop the imminent escalation of production. As a part of the preliminary hearing in Federal court, XYA petitioned the court to obtain a copy of the official gadget blueprint specifications to determine if the case should continue. Under what procedure would XYA be permitted to receive the plans?
- Suzy Que resides in North Carolina, a major supplier of the vape chemicals used in the new smoking pipes. Suzy filed a lawsuit against VapAttack Inc., a manufacturer, and supplier of VAP chemicals. Suzy’s claim alleges lung damages incurred from third-party Vap product users. Suzy is suing VapAttack Inc. in federal court in the county she lives. Suzy and most of the state’s tobacco growers and their employees live in the same county where she filed suit. VapAttack Inc., as the defendant, filed a Motion with the Federal District Court. The Motion requested the court to change the location of the lawsuit from Plaintiff’s county to Vap’s headquarters county located in the same state. What is the basis for the Motion filed by VapAttack Inc? What grounds would Vap argue to have the court grant his Motion? What grounds for removal would the court review in deciding the Motion? Is the request to move the case to Vap’s county prejudicial or, is there a legal theory that would permit the court to move the case to Defendants county? What is the name of the theory that permits Defendants to move a case to the company location? How does it work? What is the Jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in a state? Does Venue have an impact on these issues? Does Suzy have the Standing to file her claim? Why, why not? What is the likelihood that the court grants Vap’s Motion? Why? Limit your analysis to the requested Motion, not the merits of the case. Do not try the cases; analyze the merits of the Motion don’t judge.
- Jake Salesman is a sales manager at Wegotit, Inc. At a meeting with other team leaders with the company’s SVP, they reviewed the new fourth-quarter sales forecast to overcome the negative third-quarter results. The company’s performance was well below the profitable goals set by the President of the company. The projected fourth-quarter sales forecast design a plan to keep the company liquid for the rest of the year. Unless the team doubles its efforts by the fourth quarter, the third-quarter results will trigger massive layoffs. The SVP repeated the company’s President’s message, stating all sales managers must do everything and anything possible to regain their market share. The SVP declared that the team leaders were personally responsible for the survival of the company. The highlight of the presentation came when the SVP stated that the President demanded that everyone in the room be responsible for regaining the market share “by any means necessary” and leave no stone unturned and let no rule stand in their way. Before the meeting ended, the SVP indicated that he wanted every team leader to repeat their call to duty to reach the goals. If Jake Salesman follows the President’s directives, who should Jake consider discussing the President’s directive with, and why? What non-legal issues are potentially created or should be considered by the phrase “by any means necessary?” Hint: a Textbook research Issue.