UC Business Law Evel Knievel Case Study

Reypone.Nebraska legislate
2007
Churchich decision 1996,
established statue
counter to churchich decision.
Common
Law
808
Syllabus question #1: Assume that you are a trial court
judge in
Nebraska’s state court system and that Sigler v. Patrick
is one of the
civil cases you must decide. Your research has revealed
that the
critical issue in Sigler is the same issue presented in
Churchich v.
Duda, a 1996 decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska
(the highest
court in the Nebraska system). The Churchich decision
established a
new common law rule for Nebraska. Your research has
also revealed
that in 2007, the Nebraska legislature enacted a statute
that states a
rule different from the common law rule established in
Churchich. You
believe, however, that the 2007 statute offers an unwise
rule, and that
the common law rule set forth in Churchich amounts to
much better
public policy. In deciding the Sigler case, are you free to
apply the
Churchich rule? Why or why not? (From the 14th edition.)
a.
:=
=..-
↑xiz
–
n
–
o
—.&
55
N
&
oh …
· -8 vogz
– 58zx
-.
.
&
=
–
888888888
④
.
&
↑
&
*
#
=
du
N
88.&
n
:
e
:
–
8:088 8.
–
00:
–
e
1
8
.
8
0
.
2
8
=
=
:
-z=75
↑
&
·nfTrial
sides questions
2.
3,
Judge
decides questions of Law.
P’s attray
4. D’s
ofFast
atty
makes opening statement.
makes opening stement.
5.P’s atty questions Ps witnesses.
Direct
Examination
witnesses, crossing
6. D’s ctty questions P’s
Examboration.
witnesses. Dircle
D’s
questions
7. D’s ctty
Examination.
witnesses, cross
D’s
8.P’s ctty questions
Examination.
argument
9. P’s atty males
closing statement.
10.D’s city makes
closing
11 case
argument
statement.
goes -> Jury reach averdist
Motions,
Post-Trial
1.
grove
Directed Verdict (Notyet
Jury I
to the
NOV
the verdice.
withstanding
Judgement case
to the
S
the
gone
Jung
cafter
2.
not
trial,
new
a
for
the law, not fact
of
4. Appeal (only questions
3. Notion
IRAC- Brufing
a
case.
the
case in
the
is
where
Legal system
legal
issue in
must be or
I-issue,
the form of yes”or “no”
question.
case
specific.
what is the Legal question
the Court have to answer
to
decide
order
the
an
outcome of the
case.
Riqals-the Legal
pronaisefinition
apply to this case,
①application
not case specific.
explanation
coult’s
issue
the
C: concluson
of the
–
–
analysis of the Legal
the law
applied
facets.
–
restating issue.
guilty
or not
guilty,
to
Torts
Alevels/ lands of wrongfulness.
1. Incent; desire
cause certain consequency
to
substantial
or
that
those
certainty
will results
from one’s
consequences
behavior.
2.recklessness. A.
–
councions
difference
in
of haran crecoed
from the person’s
3.
from inserts!
I down
by
so
know
high risk
couldeasily
one behavior
charms
behavior,
Negligence:Failure
a
to
use reasonable
–
someone
result, condent
that
falls below the level
harmed as
is
to
project
risk
4. Strict
a
others
of harm.
Liabiling:liability
necessary
against unreasonable
without
face
Damages.