exam prep - roger williams university
TRANSCRIPT
CLASS ROADMAP
• THE HYPOTHETICAL
• MISTAKE NUMBER ONE
• THE FIRST STEPS
• WALKING THROUGH A HYPOTHETICAL
• YOUR TURN
MISTAKE NUMBER ONE:THE ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND THE WHOLE
SOLUTION: DIVIDE EVERY HYPO INTO
MANAGEABLE COMPONENTS.
• THE RESPONSE IS A SERIES OF PARAGRAPHS, EACH CORRESPONDING TO AN ISSUE.
• HOW TO ANALYZE A HYPO IS TOO LARGE AND UNWIELDY A PROPOSITION. IF HYPOS CAN BE
BROKEN DOWN INTO UNITS, THEN YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE EACH UNIT. THE SUM
TOTAL OF THE ANALYSIS OF EACH UNIT IS THE SERIES OF WELL-ORGANIZED PARAGRAPHS –
ONE FOR EACH ISSUE.
ANALYZE ONE ISSUE AFTER ANOTHER USING HEADINGS AND PARAGRAPHS
• YOU ANALYZE ONE ISSUE AFTER ANOTHER, GIVING MORE
ANALYSIS WHERE INDICATED, ONE PARAGRAPH AFTER ANOTHER.
• A SERIES OF ISSUES DISCUSSED IN A SERIES OF PARAGRAPHS WITH
APPROPRIATE HEADINGS MAKES A WELL-WRITTEN ESSAY ANSWER.
PLAN BEFORE YOU WRITE, BUT PLAN, WRITE, PLAN, WRITE, PLAN, WRITE
• PLAN BEFORE YOU WRITE:
• PLAN FOR NO MORE THAN ¼ TO 1/3 OF TIME. ON 60 MIN. HYPO, NO MORE THAN 15
MINUTES. 90 MINUTES, NO MORE THAN 30. IF THREE HOURS, ONE HOUR TO PLAN, BUT YOU
DO NOT HAVE LUXURY TO RELAX AND PLAN. SO ANOTHER MODIFICATION:
• SPEND NO MORE THAN 10 OR 12 MINUTES PLANNING BEFORE YOU GET SOMETHING DOWN
ON PAPER. IF 1/3 OF THE ALLOTTED TIME IS 20 MINUTES, BREAK IT INTO TWO 10 MINUTE
PLANNING SESSIONS. PLAN FOR 10 MINUTES, WRITE. THEN PLAN AGAIN. THEN WRITE.
• IF YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PLAN, PLAN FOR 15 MINUTES, WRITE. THEN PLAN FOR 15
MINUTES, WRITE.
• PLAN FOR NO MORE THAN 10 TO 15 MINUTES AT A TIME. PLAN, WRITE; PLAN, WRITE;
PLAN, WRITE THROUGHOUT YOUR EXAM.
FIRST STEPS ON SCRAP PAPER
1. TURN OVER THE EXAM & PULL OUT THE SCRAP PAPER
2. WRITE DOWN YOUR PREPARED “BULLET LIST” OF
TOPICS/CONCEPTS/”LEGAL TOOLS”
3. SKIM EXAM INSTRUCTIONS, COUNT THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
AND PAGES
4. PLAN & NOTE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR EACH QUESTION OR
SECTION
FIRST STEPS
1. READ THE CALL OF THE QUESTION
2. ON SCRAP PAPER, IDENTIFY THE “CONFLICT PAIRS”
OR “PARTIES IN DISPUTE” (THE LAWSUITS)
3. IDENTIFY EACH PARTY’S “PRACTICAL GOAL”
THEN START TO “OUTLINE” STARTING ON THE FACT PATTERN
1. GO THROUGH THE FACTS & FOR EACH PARTY, IDENTIFY WHAT “LEGAL TOOLS” WILL HELP
HIM OR HER REACH THEIR PRACTICAL GOAL. THAT LEGAL TOOL MIGHT BE A CAUSE OF
ACTION, A CRIME, A DEFENSE (IT SHOULD BE LISTED ON YOUR “BULLET LIST”)
2. CIRCLE FACTS AS YOU MATCH THEM TO YOUR “LEGAL TOOLS” (DRAW LINE TO MARGIN)
3. ONCE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL “LEGAL TOOLS,” STOP.
4. IN YOUR “OUTLINE CHART” ON YOUR SCRAP PAPER, NOTE WHICH LEGAL TOOLS EACH
PARTY WILL ASSERT
5. MAKE SOME NOTES TO YOURSELF ABOUT THEM IN YOUR CHART
YOUR OUTLINEA $ for lack of enjoyment to land B not pay $ for flying drone over land
Trespass to Land
- Intentional entry? - Intentional easy “directed”
(100 feet above probably low enough her
enjoyment, plus drone noise? And pictures? )
- Land of another? Yes
- Without permission? (express implied) apply both
Not trespass to Land
Not intentional – loser “directed”
Entry? – 100 feet above possibly?
Without permission (express no) implied maybe
B get $ for drone A not pay $ for drone
Conversion (argue each element using facts one issue,
and one paragraph at a time in IRAC form)
- Intent – Purpose or know with substantial cert
- Destruction of Personal Property (drone yes)
Not conversion (within these IRACs address what A
would argue on the facts)
Affirmative Defense?
Protection of Real Property –
Define
Apply to facts arguing both sides
START TO WRITE USING THIS RECOMMENDED APPROACH
•ONCE YOU HAVE A PLAN IN YOUR CHART (LEGAL
TOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR EACH SIDE)
•WITH SOME NOTES TO GUIDE YOUR ANALYSIS
(LONGER ANALYSIS, SHORTER ANALYSIS)
GO TO YOUR EXAM & START TO WRITE
• FIRST, STATE THE CONFLICT PAIR YOU ARE DISCUSSING ( A V. B)
• NEXT, USING A HEADING, STATE THE LEGAL TOOL’S NAME (TRESPASS TO LAND)
• TRESPASS TO LAND REQUIRES THE 1) INTENTIONAL ENTRY 2) OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER
3) WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
QUESTION ONE – STATE & DEFINE THE LEGAL TOOL.
• A V. B. FOR TRESPASS
• TRESPASS TO LAND REQUIRES THE 1) INTENTIONAL ENTRY 2) OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER
3) WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION . (POLICY FOR THIS RULE?) ADD THAT HERE.
ADDRESS ONE ISSUE AT A TIME IN WELL-ORGANIZED PARAGRAPHS (SOME LONGER, SOME SHORTER) -
IRACS
• 1) INTENTIONAL ENTRY? - THE DEFENDANT MUST INTEND (PURPOSE OR KNOWING WITH
SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY) ENTER THE LAND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE TRESPASS. CAUSING
AN OBJECT OR THING TO ENTER SOMEONE’S PROPERTY CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED TRESPASS.
HERE, B “DIRECTED” HIS DRONE TOWARD A’S PROPERTY AND THEREFORE HAD A PURPOSE FOR
THE DRONE TO END UP ABOVE HER PROPERTY. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE 100 FEET
ABOVE HER PROPERTY IS AN “ENTRY” OF HER LAND. IT PROBABLY IS BECAUSE A PERSON
OWNS THE LAND ABOVE HER PROPERTY TO A CERTAIN LEVEL. HERE, SHE WOULD ARGUE THAT
THE 100 FEET ABOVE IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO HER ENJOYMENT OF HER PROPERTY THAT IT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ENTRY. HE WOULD ARGUE THAT 100 FEET IS FAR ENOUGH ABOVE
HER LAND THAT IT’S NOT ENTRY. IT’S LIKELY AN ENTRY BECAUSE NOT SO HIGH THAT IT WOULD
NOT IMPACT HER USE OF THE LAND.
ISSUE 2 & 3 ADDRESSED SEPARATELY
• 2) OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER?- HERE, THE PROPERTY IS THE LAND OF ANOTHER BECAUSE B DOES NOT
OWN IT OR HAVE ANY INTEREST IN IT.
• 3) WITHOUT THE OWNER’S PERMISSION ?– PERMISSION CAN BE EXPRESS (STATED) OR IMPLIED. IMPLIED
PERMISSION OCCURS WHERE A REASONABLE PERSON IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD BELIEVE THAT HE
HAD PERMISSION TO ENTER THE LAND. HERE, A GAVE NO EXPRESS PERMISSION FOR B TO ENTER. THERE
MAY BE AN ARGUMENT THAT SHE IMPLIED PERMISSION BY NOT SAYING ANYTHING TO B DURING THE
FIRST TIMES THAT HE FLEW HIS PLANE OVER HER LAND. HE MIGHT ARGUE THAT HE REASONABLY COULD
BELIEVE THAT SHE HAD NO OBJECTION TO HIS FLYING THE DRONE ABOVE HER LAND. HOWEVER, SHE
WOULD ARGUE THAT ALLOWING HIM TO FLY IT ONCE WAS NOT IMPLIED PERMISSION BECAUSE A
REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ALLOW ONE MISTAKE. AS SOON AS SHE REALIZED HE WAS INTENTIONALLY
DOING IT, SHE OBJECTED. HE PROBABLY HAD NO PERMISSION TO FLY THE DRONE OVER THE LAND.
A v. B for trespass
Trespass to land requires the 1) intentional entry 2) of the land of another 3) without authorization . (policy
for this rule?) add that here.
Intentional entry? - The defendant must intend (purpose or knowing with substantial certainty) enter the land
that is the subject of the trespass. Causing an object or thing to enter someone’s property can also be
considered trespass. Here, B “directed” his drone toward A’s property and therefore had a purpose for the
drone to end up above her property. The question is whether the 100 feet above her property is an “entry” of
her land. It probably is because a person owns the land above her property to a certain level. Here, she would
argue that the 100 feet above is close enough to her enjoyment of her property that it should be considered an
entry. He would argue that 100 feet is far enough above her land that it’s not entry. It’s likely an entry because
not so high that it would not impact her use of the land.
2) Of the land of another?- here, the property is the land of another because B does not own it or have any
interest in it.
3) Without the owner’s permission ?– permission can be express (stated) or implied. Implied permission occurs
where a reasonable person in the circumstance would believe that he had permission to enter the land. Here,
A gave no express permission for B to enter. There may be an argument that she implied permission by not
saying anything to B during the first times that he flew his plane over her land. He might argue that he
reasonably could believe that she had no objection to his flying the drone above her land. However, she
would argue that allowing him to fly it once was not implied permission because a reasonable person would
allow one mistake. As soon as she realized he was intentionally doing it, she objected. He probably had no
permission to fly the drone over the land.
A likely has a prima facie claim of trespass against B.