Chapter Two

The Reading and Briefing of Cases

I. Sample Test Questions

Fill-ins

1.The party who files an appeal is the _____________________.

2.The party against whom an appeal is taken is the ___________________.

3.The __________________ gives the location where a case may be found.

4.An ___________________ is a friend of the court brief filed by a person who has no right to appear before the court, but who nevertheless wishes to bring to the courts attention legal arguments relevant to the resolution of the case.

5.A written opinion of any judge that disagrees with the conclusion reached by the majority is known as a __________________.

6.At the very end of a written opinion, the case ________ (will/will not) indicate whether all of the justices agreed with the decision of the majority.

7.An opinion written by a judge that agrees with the outcome of the majority opinion, but is based on different grounds, is known as a ____________________.

8.The type of recovery being sought by the plaintiff is known as the ______________.

9.The ______________ is the legal theory upon which the plaintiff has based the original suit.

10.The main legal question raised in a brief is known as the ______________.

11.The decision of the court that indicates who won the case is referred to in a format #1 brief as the _______________.

12.If an appellate court orders a case to be returned to a lower court for further action in

accordance with directions in the appellate decision, that case is said to have been

_________________.

Short Answers/Essays

1.List and define two remedies.

2.Give three examples of causes of action (you need not define them).

3.List the seven parts of a Format #1 brief (excluding the title and citation).

4.List the five parts of a Format #2 brief (excluding the title and citation).

5.List and define any four of the basic components of a reported case.

6.List one of the key questions to consider when formulating an issue.

7.Write the correct citation form for the following situations:

a.Our state statute 946.75

b.The case of State v. Becker was heard in the middle-level state appeals court in our state. It is a 1985 case, and it can be found in volume 533, page 134, of the regional reporter for our area. Teachers note: If there is a state reporter for your state, the question may require other information as well, such as the volume and page number for the state reporter.

c.Hanley filed suit against Bergstrom in the highest level state appeals court. The case can be found in volume 125, page 31, of the appropriate set of books. It is a 1957 case. Teacher: Please see the note for 7.b immediately above.

8.Please write a Format #1 brief for the following case. (Actual citations for the Carter and Thomas cases referred to below are not possible, because they are fictional references.)

LAVENDER, J.

In this case, the appellee filed suit against the appellant for defamation, and the appellee was awarded damages in the amount of $25,000 by the District Court. In this case, we reverse the decision of that court.

The facts that gave rise to the case are as follows. In the fall of 2002, the appellant printed in its weekly magazine, Superstar Reports, a story that the appellee had gotten severely intoxicated one night at the Orango Ski Lodge in Red Rock, Colorado, and ended up in a fistfight with someone by the name of Carnegie. The story turned out to be untrue. In fact, the appellee was not even in Colorado at the time. When the appellee filed a lawsuit against the appellant, the appellant newspaper argued that its reporters had good reason to believe at the time of publication that the story was true, that the story had been given to the newspaper from a reliable source, and that an award of damages would have a chilling effect upon the newspapers rights to freedom of speech.

This has proven to be a troublesome case for the court, because the court is not unaware that the appellees reputation may have been damaged by a reporting of an incident that turned out to be untrue. On the other hand, the appellant printed the story believing it to be true, and members of the news media should not have to operate under a cloud of fear that any article that is printed may be the subject of a defamation suit. It is well settled in the law that members of the news media are treated in a somewhat unique way when they are being sued for defamation of character. The case law of this state [see Carter v. Hendley, xxx P.3d xxx, Thomas v. Rogers, xxx P.3d xxx, and others] clearly states that in order to recover against members of the news media for defamation, one must prove malice or reckless disregard for the truth. In light of this finding, the lower courts finding awarding damages to the appellee is hereby reversed.

KAYLOR, and BEACH, JJ. concur.

II. Answers to the Sample Test Questions

Fill-ins

1.appellant

2.appellee

3.citation

4.amicus curiae brief

5.dissenting opinion

6.will

7.concurring opinion

8.remedy

9.cause of action

10.issue

11.finding

12.remanded

Short Answers/Essays

1.a. damages: a suit for money

b.injunction: There are two types of injunctions. A prohibitory injunction is a court order preventing a party from doing a particular act, such as an order to enjoin a person from entering upon the land of another. A mandatory injunction is a court order requiring a party to do a particular act.

2.Answers will vary, but might include:

a.breach of contract

b.negligence

c.battery

d.assault

e.false imprisonment

f.defamation

g.the name of any act constituting a crime

3.The seven parts of a Format #1 brief are:

a.remedy

b.cause of action

c.facts

d.procedural history

e.issue

f.finding

g.reason

4.The five parts of a Format #2 brief are:

a.lower court procedure

b.facts

c.issue

d.holding

e.reasoning

5.Answers will vary. A sample answer is provided below:

The elements of a reported case include:

1.The style. The style is the name of the case such as Jones v. Smith

2.The date of the present court decision, which may include information such as the date of any rehearing on the matter if one took place.

3.A brief summary of the case, which is usually one to two paragraphs in length. It is prepared by the publisher rather than the court.

4.Headnotes, which are points of law drawn from the case by the publisher. They are organized by topic and can give the reader insight into the contents of the case, and they can provide a vehicle for finding other similar cases.

Note: Other components that might be named by students include:

Docket number

Name of the court rendering the decision

Notation of concurring and dissenting opinions

Names of the attorneys involved in the appeal

Name of the justice writing for the majority opinion

Body of the decision

Names of all justices joining in the majority opinion

Concurring and dissenting opinions

6.Answers will vary but may include:

a. Are both procedural and substantive issues to be examined?

b. Will the answer to the issue have applicability to future cases?

c. Does the question call for a yes or no answer?

7.a.Answers will vary by state.

b.Answers will vary by state.

c.Answers will vary by state.

8.

Rem.:Damages

C/A:Defamation

Facts:The defendant printed in its weekly magazine a story that the plaintiff became intoxicated and ultimately got involved in a fistfight. The story was totally untrue, but the reporters for the paper had good reason to believe at the time of publication that the story was true. The plaintiff ultimately sued the defendant for defamation.

Proc:The District Court awarded damages to the plaintiff, and the case has now been brought before this court as a result of an appeal by the defendant.

Issue:In order to recover damages against members of the news media, is it necessary to prove malice or reckless disregard for the truth?

Finding:Defendant; reversed.

Reason:Members of the news media should not have to operate under a cloud of fear that any article that is printed may be the subject of a defamation suit. Therefore, the press has a defense when it can demonstrate that it was operating in good faith and there is no showing of either malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

III. Answers to the Review Questions in the Text

1.

Hargrave v. Brock

Rem.:Damages

C/A:False imprisonment

Facts:The plaintiff and the defendant took a rowboat out into the ocean to go fishing. The defendant had evidently arranged to have a motorboat drive by and pick him up - and leave the plaintiff stranded in the rowboat. The defendant threw the oars overboard, jumped into the water, and boarded the other boat. The plaintiff, who could not swim, was abandoned 25 miles from shore, but he was eventually rescued by the Coast Guard 14 hours later.

Proc.:The plaintiff won in the lower court, and the defendant has now appealed to this court.

Issue:Is it necessary to prove that the plaintiff was restricted by walls in order to establish a case of false imprisonment?

Finding:Plaintiff; affirmed.

Reason:The essence of a false imprisonment case is a prevention of freedom of movement. When the defendant was abandoned in the middle of the ocean and had no oars, his movement was effectively restricted. The plaintiff need not be surrounded by walls in order to establish a case of false imprisonment.

2.

Collings v. Wentworth

Rem.:Order of specific performance

C/A:Breach of contract

Facts:The plaintiff signed a contract to purchase the defendants house, but the defendants later changed their minds and refused to proceed with the closing. Although the defendants said they would release the deposit money if the plaintiff would agree to call off the contract, the plaintiff refused and sued to force the defendants to transfer the title to him.

Proc.:The plaintiff obtained an order of specific performance in the Carson County Circuit Court. The order was reversed by the District Court of Appeals and was then appealed to the present court.

Issue:Is every parcel of real property considered sufficiently unique that one can obtain an order of specific performance to compel transfer of title?

Finding:Plaintiff; reversed.

Reason:Orders of specific performance will only be granted in cases in which the property in question is regarded as unique. Since every parcel of real property is unique by definition because of its location, courts will ordinarily grant requests for such orders to transfer the title to real estate.

3.

State v. Rockhold

C/A:Robbery

Facts:The defendant stole money off the table from three individuals who were playing poker at the time. He threatened them all with a sawed-off shotgun. He was later apprehended and identified by the victims.

Proc.:The defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court and sentenced to nine years in jail on the basis that it was the state mandatory minimum of three years for robbing each of the three victims. The case was then appealed to the present court.

Issue:Can one receive consecutive mandatory minimum three-year sentences for each victim of a robbery when all of the victims were robbed at the same time by the defendant?

Finding:State; affirmed.

Reason:When a person chooses to rob a number of people simultaneously, he or she must accept the courts decision to impose the mandatory minimum three-year sentence for each and every victim. Furthermore, it is within the discretion of the court to require that the three-year sentences per victim may run consecutively rather than concurrently.

4.

Peterson v. Jungclaus

Rem.:Damages

C/A:False imprisonment

Facts:The plaintiff was a college student who became involved with a cult called The Source. The plaintiffs stepfather, who is a defendant in this case along with the plaintiffs mother, took the plaintiff to a deprogrammer, and the plaintiff willingly consented to it. During this period, the plaintiff had opportunities to escape but evidently chose not to do so. Nevertheless, after 16 days, the plaintiff finally decided to return to The Source.

Proc.:The defendants prevailed in the State Superior Court, and the plaintiff then appealed to the present court.

Issue:Can a defendant be responsible for false imprisonment of the plaintiff if the plaintiff had reasonable and safe opportunities to escape?

Finding:Defendants; affirmed.

Reason:A valid case of false imprisonment cannot exist if the party claiming false imprisonment had reasonable and safe opportunities to escape and chose not to take advantage of them.

5.

Katko v. Briney

Rem.:Damages

C/A:Battery

Facts:Because of the fact that the defendants farmhouse had been broken into in the past, the defendant not only posted No Trespassing signs, but also set up a spring gun in one of the rooms. The plaintiff was shot by the spring gun while he was trespassing on the property.

Proc.:The plaintiff prevailed in the Circuit Court, and the defendant then appealed to the present court.

Issue:Can one use deadly force to protect private property from a trespasser when the trespasser is not committing a felony of violence, a felony punishable by death, or any act endangering human life?

Finding:Plaintiff; affirmed.

Reason:The law places a higher value on human safety than upon mere property rights. The use of deadly force against ordinary trespassers is therefore excessive and unjustifiable.

6.

Sarbanes v. Arcuro

Rem.:Damages

C/A:Negligence

Facts:The plaintiff was driving eastbound and the defendant was driving northbound when they both approached the same intersection. The defendant went through the red light without even slowing down and struck the car belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, approached the intersection at 55 miles-per-hour in a 25 mile-per-hour zone.

Proc.:The plaintiff won in the Circuit Court, and the defendant then appealed to this court.

Issue:In this state, is it possible for the plaintiff to recover damages in a negligence case when the plaintiff is to some extent negligent himself or herself?

Finding:Plaintiff; affirmed.

Reason:The doctrine known as comparative negligence, which is applicable in this state, allows the plaintiff to recover some damages even when the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for causing the injury. This rule prevails in this state as a result of the 1995 Supreme Court case of Rinaldi v. Patt.

7.

State v. Cantor

C/A:Robbery

Facts:The defendant entered a convenience store, threatened a number of people with a handgun, took money from the cash register, and left. No one was physically injured. The defendant was later apprehended by the police.

Proc.:The defendant was convicted in District Court and subsequently appealed to the present court.

Issue:In order to establish a case of robbery, is it sufficient to prove that the defendant placed the victim in apprehension of violence even if the victim was not physically injured?

Finding:State; affirmed.

Reason:A proof of physical violence is not necessary in order to establish a case of robbery. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant placed the victim in apprehension of violence.

8.

In re: the Estate of Bennington

Rem.:Attorneys fees

C/A:Will contest

Facts:In 1994, Catherine Bennington made a will leaving the major portion of her estate to her son, the plaintiff in this case. In 1997, she made a new will leaving the entire estate to the American Cancer Society. When the second will was probated after Catherines death, the plaintiff challenged the validity of the second will on the basis that Catherine lacked mental capacity at the time of the second will, and that the first will should therefore be recognized. At a subsequent court hearing, the plaintiffs argument was rejected. The plaintiff then brought a suit to seek reimbursement for the attorneys fees that he expended in challenging the will.

Proc.:The plaintiff was awarded attorneys fees in the lower court, and the estate then appealed the ruling to the present court.

Issue:If one in good faith challenges the validity of a will by court action in this state, is he or she entitled to reasonable attorneys fees from the estate?

Finding:Plaintiff; affirmed.

Reason:One who challenges the validity of a will by court action in this state may be granted attorneys fees from the estate provided that he or she is determined by the court to be acting in good faith. The rule is justified in this case on two grounds: 1. State Statute Sec. 744.23 specifically provides for such an attorneys fee award, and 2. Case law supports such a decision (see In re: the Estate of Tyler and In re: the Estate of Kuchen). The rule exists to encourage a legitimate search for the truth in probate proceedings.

9.

State v. Generis

C/A:Fraud, corruption, and patient abuse

Facts:A grand jury was created in 1998 to investigate whether there had been fraud, corruption, and patient abuse by Medicaid providers. In October of 2000, the grand jury demanded that Dr. Generis, a target of the grand jury, produce records for the period from July of 2000 through October of 2002. The defendant refused on the basis that the records sought were for a period of time after the grand jury was impaneled.

Proc.:The court issued an order finding Generis to be in contempt of court. Generis then appealed to this court and asked that the subpoena be quashed and that the contempt citation be lifted.

Issue:In this state, can a grand jury subpoena records that come from a time period after the grand jury is impaneled?

Finding:Generis; reversed. (Teachers note: Generis cannot be labeled as a defendant in this case, because he has not yet been indicted by the grand jury.)

Reason:In this state, a grand jury cannot subpoena records that come from a time period after the grand jury is impaneled. Three reasons for this rule are cited by the court: 1. State Statute Sec. 832.41 seems to restrict grand jury investigations to matters that have already occurred prior to the formation of the grand jury; 2. The order creating this grand jury specifically restricted the investigation to crimes that had been committed; and 3. Case law in this state clearly demonstrates grand juries only have the authority to investigate matters that predate the jurys creation.

10.

Pierce v. Casas Adobes Baptist Church

Rem.:Damages

C/A:Loss of consortium (Teachers note: The negligence claim is not listed here as a cause of action, because it was not the subject of the current appeal.)

Facts:The plaintiffs son (who was also a plaintiff in the original suit) was severely injured while he was riding as a passenger on a bus driven by one of the defendants and owned by the other.

Proc.:Both the son and the parents prevailed in the lower court on the issue of negligence, but the court denied the parents claim for loss of consortium. The parents appealed to the present court as to the loss of consortium issue.

Issue:When a child is injured, do his or her parents have the right to collect damages on the basis of loss of consortium due to their emotional losses when there has been no deprivation of the childs society, companionship, love, or support?

Finding:Defendant (as to the issue of loss of consortium); affirmed.

Reason:Loss of consortium is dependent upon proof of lost companionship, love, and support rather than purely emotional losses.

11.

State v. Holton

L/C Proc.:The state and the defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby the police dropped an assault and battery charge, and the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the remaining charges, which included possession of a controlled substance. Part of the agreement between the state and the defendant was, however, that the defendant could reserve the right to appeal the courts order denying his motion to suppress on the drug possession charge. The appeal of that order is now before the present court.

Facts:The defendant was stopped by the police because they suspected that he was driving under the influence. The police smelled alcohol on his breath and noticed that his eyes were glazed and bloodshot. In conformity with standard police procedure, the officers asked the defendant to open his mouth to check for signs of drug ingestion. The defendant did not do so, but instead started chewing. One of the officers saw something that appeared to be a piece of plastic in the corner of his mouth. A struggle ensued in which the police told the defendant that he was under arrest and that he must spit out whatever was in his mouth. Ultimately, the defendant did so, and the object turned out to be a bag containing methamphetamine.

Issue:Did the trial court err in denying the defendants motion to suppress evidence?

Holding:A motion to suppress should be granted when there are emergency or exigent circumstances that justify a warrantless search by the police.

Reason:While warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an exception to the rule exists in exigent circumstances. Seizure of the evidence was appropriate on the basis of two such exigent circumstances in this case: 1. the defendant was about to remove or destroy evidence, and 2. the defendant was about to ingest a massive overdose of methamphetamine.

12.

Obert v. Baratta

L/C Proc.:The plaintiffs suit for damages against the defendant was dismissed by the trial court by the entry of an order of summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal of that order is before the appellate court in this case. Also, the plaintiffs proposed expert witness was excluded by the trial court, and the present court considered the appropriateness of disallowing the expert to testify.

Facts:Plaintiff Ann Obert and the defendant were each playing in the outfield during an intra-office baseball game. When a fly ball was hit, the two players violently collided with each other while attempting to catch the ball. Neither player evidently saw the other since their eyes were fixed on the ball, and neither player evidently called for the ball.

Issues:1.Was it appropriate for the court to grant a summary judgment in this case?

2.Was it appropriate for the court to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs proposed expert?

Holding:1.When there is no proof of either reckless or intentional conduct in an informal sporting event where the plaintiff is injured, the lower court is correct in granting a motion for summary judgment and taking the question out of the hands of the jury.

2.Exclusion of the plaintiffs expert testimony was appropriate because of the experts lack of understanding of the specific facts of this case and his application of normal standards of negligence to a situation involving injuries in a normal sporting event.

Reason:1.A summary judgment should have been granted, because there is a strong public policy that encourages participants to vigorously engage in rough-and-tumble sports without being placed in fear of lawsuits.

2.More than ordinary negligence on the part of the defendant must be proven before a court will recognize a cause of action due to injuries to the plaintiff in an informal sporting event. The court should not second-guess participants conduct without a clear showing of reckless or intentional conduct. While it is possible that harmful conduct that was based upon jealousy, animus, or prior warnings to the defendant might present a cause of action to be considered by the jury, there was no showing of such conduct in this case. Since the plaintiffs expert was applying a standard that was contrary to the Supreme Court of this state, exclusion of the experts testimony was appropriate.

13.

Duncan v. Black-Eyed Pea U.S.A., Inc.

L/C Proc.:The plaintiffs slip-and-fall suit against the defendant was dismissed by the trial court by the entry of an order of summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal of that order is before the appellate court in this case. The summary judgment was granted after the court found that there was no evidence either that 1. the defendants agents placed the material on the floor, 2. the defendants agents knew that the substance was on the floor, or 3. the substance was on the floor for a long enough period of time that in the exercise of ordinary care the defendants agents should have discovered and removed the substance.

Facts:Plaintiff Betty Duncan slipped and fell in the premises owned and operated by the defendant. She claimed that she was injured as a result of a foreign substance on the floor. The fall took place in a high traffic area of the restaurant. According to deposition testimony, while the plaintiff was on the floor immediately after the fall, she saw nothing present on the floor that would have caused the accident. The plaintiff did testify, however, that when she went back to the location of the accident after she received her medical treatment, she observed a greasy spot and a piece of bread at that location.

Issue:Was it appropriate for the court to grant a summary judgment in this case?

Holding:Where the plaintiff is attempting to prove the defendants constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the basis of circumstantial evidence in a slip-and-fall case, a summary judgment should not have been granted because the court is to draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.

Reason:It appears that a question of material fact exists with respect to the issue of constructive notice in light of the fact that the accident occurred in a high traffic area. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff offered no evidence of how long the spill existed.

14.

Lightfoot v. State

L/C Proc.:The defendant, charged with the unlawful manufacture of cannabis, pled nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress marijuana plants that had been seized without a warrant. That appeal is now before the present court.

Facts:The defendants next door neighbor saw plants in the defendants backyard. Suspecting that they were marijuana she reported her suspicions to the police. Officer McDaniel came to her home, where, from her yard, he could see three pots in the defendants backyard containing plants, which, based upon his training and experience, he believed to be marijuana. The marijuana plants were in open view. Officer McDaniel, accompanied by two other officers, walked over to the defendants residence and knocked. No-one answered. He then walked around to the backyard and seized the plants. Shortly after the plants were seized the defendant showed up at the residence and was arrested. The officer had no warrant authorizing the seizure of the plants.

Issues:1.Was the lower court correct in denying the defendants motion to suppress?

2. Can a police officer without a warrant seize marijuana plants that are in plain view when the police officer saw the plants from a place he/she had a right to be?

Holding:1.The lower court was correct in denying the defendants motion to suppress.

2. A police officer without a warrant can seize marijuana plants that are in plain view when the police officer saw the plants from a place he/she had a right to be, because under these circumstances, the defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy and such a seizure is not an unreasonable governmental intrusion.

Reason:The motion to suppress was correctly denied, because the evidence was in plain view, and the defendant did not therefore have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, the police officer was able to see the marijuana plants from the yard of the next door neighbor, and that neighbor had given the officer permission to enter her property. The court specifically cited case law (Boim v. State and State v. Ashby) in support of its findings.

15. (Note: This case is an example of a Format #2 brief that does not have a separate procedural issue.)

Gibbs v. Gibbs

L/C Proc.:The lower court granted a final judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to the present court.

Facts:The defendant hired the plaintiff, a real estate agent, to sell the defendants property. A potential buyer was introduced to the defendant by the plaintiff, and a contract was drawn up by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. The contract was rejected at the time, but the defendant sold the property to the same party a month later under terms that were substantially the same as those found in the original contract. The defendant refused to pay the real estate commission, and the plaintiff filed suit.

Issue:Was the plaintiff the procuring cause of the real property sale and therefore entitled to the real estate commission?

Holding:The plaintiff was entitled to the real estate commission because he called the attention of the ultimate purchaser to the subject property and because it was through the plaintiffs efforts that the sale was consummated.

Reason:Various facts supported the plaintiffs claim to the commission, including: 1. he introduced the buyer to the defendant; 2. he prepared the contract on behalf of the buyer to submit to the defendant; and 3. the ultimate contract was based substantially on the same terms as the one submitted by the plaintiff. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff continued to attempt to complete the sale even after the first contract was rejected. All of these factors together led the court to conclude that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale and was therefore entitled to the commission.

15.

Williams v. Legree

L/C Proc.:The judge in the lower court granted the defendants motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action. (A default was entered in that court against the defendant Bobby Williams, but he is not involved in this appeal.)

Facts:The plaintiff and the defendant were married and had a child, who is now deceased. The circumstances surrounding the death of that child is the basis for this wrongful death action. The plaintiff and the defendant separated, and the plaintiff retained custody of the child. While the plaintiff was in the hospital, the defendant removed the child from the custody of a babysitter and refused to give the child back. A relative of the defendant ultimately ran over the child by accident with a truck, and because of the relationship that the defendant had with the driver, he refused to file a wrongful death action. The plaintiff now wants to recover for the lost services of the child as well as pain and suffering.

Issue:1.Was the court correct in granting the defendants motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action?

Is the plaintiff, who was living apart but not legally separated from her husband, prohibited by Florida Statute 768.03 from filing a wrongful death claim for the loss of their child?

Holding:1.The court erred in granting the defendants motion to dismiss, and the case is reversed and remanded.

Whether or not the plaintiff is legally separated from her husband, she is not prohibited by Florida Statute 768.03 from filing a wrongful death claim for the loss of their child.

Reason:The Supreme Court of Florida has addressed this issue specifically when the two parties are living apart. That court has determined that either party has the right to recover for mental pain and suffering regardless of the state of their domestic affairs at the time of the childs death. The justices in that case also pointed out that the right to recover for the deceased childs services belongs to the parent who was actually supporting the child. The court in the present case noted that the plaintiffs complaint failed to make a claim for the deceased childs services. Nevertheless, it found that the motion to dismiss was erroneously granted when the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action.