VOCABULARY

GLEANING

OUTSET

TO WADE

OPAQUE PROSE

ENOUGH TO CONFESS

WHICH UPON FULLER REFLECTION

EVEN IF NOT FAULTY

UPON REHEARING

WHOLLY ERRONEOUS

THE MAIN PROPOSITION

AT ANY RATE

UPON REASONS

THE MORE JUSTLY

UPON REASONS OF EQUAL

COGENCY

BE SUPERSEDED BY A
CONCLUSION
TO PIERCE THROUGH

TO CUT THROUGH OVERGROWN

VERBAL FOLIAGE.

PENETRATING MIND

DOESN’T HELP YOU SWIFTLY

casenote

I.-Exercises

Begin the following exercises by looking up the cases cited.

Then write a casenote for each one—that is, a short case synopsis that
follows a standard form:

(1) case name and citation;

(2) brief facts
(3) question for decision
(4) holding
(5) Reasoning.

Your finished product should fit on a five-by-seven-inch index

card (front and back).

 Elaborate two letters of legal opinion based on the following case

study facts.

 Determine the negligence, omission, or criminal or offense intent

The exercises are increasingly challenging for either or both of two reasons: first,
the increasing complexity of the legal principles involved; and second, the
increasing difficulty of the language used in the opinions.

 When you’re finished, have a friend assess how easy it is to

understand what you’ve written.

Here’s an example of a case note:

Case: Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 519 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1974).

Facts: While driving in city traffic, Henderson found that, despite repeated
attempts, she couldn’t break. To avoid injuring anyone, she ran into a pole. An
investigator later found that part of a rubber gasket from the air filter had gotten into
the carburetor. Henderson sued Ford on various theories, including defective
design. Her expert witness didn’t criticize the design of the gasket, carburetor, or
air filter, but did say that the positioning of the parts might have been better. No
one testified that the air-filter housing was unreasonably dangerous from the time
of installation. Yet the jury determined that the air-filter housing was defective and
that this defect had caused Henderson’s damage.

CASE STUDY

FACTS

 Dr. Robert Taylor left on holidays for a month and hired Jon
Macgregor to be housesitting his home residence in Vancouver while
being away in Florida for the winter.
 Jon had two options to be looking after the property and premises
while he stayed there and went to work respectively. Some days he
could not stay at the property, due to the fact that he either came
late from work and sometimes not enough time to make it to
continue housesitting Dr. Taylor´s residence.
 On one night in particular snowed so badly, the whole night and the
temperature went to 40 below and covering the ground as high as a
foot and a half.

 The next morning a senior citizen woman named Mrs. Stella Wright,
noticed while walking her little dog, the fencing around the Taylor´s
 residence showed through the snow with some strange reddish color
and which ended at some point with a human hand coming out near
some bushes and close to where she knew Dr. Taylor had his
swimming pool.
 She called the police and soon after the police confirmed intent of
breaking an entry and with a dead suspect within the proximity of the
swimming pool at the entrance of Dr. Taylor´s residence.
 The suspect was known to the police for several reports and other
severe criminal offenses.
 Jon Macgregor coming back to check the residence, noticed the police
presence and rushed to find out the facts with the police officer in
charged.
 He was informed that a dead man known to the police by the name
of Steve Utterman, had broken into the premises and by accident did
not know about the swimming pool fully covered with snow and
black ice in the walking areas and which caused the man to slip off
and hit his head, bleeding and killing him instantly as either the result
of the injury and in addition not to mention the high degrees of
hypothermia while he was injured.
 Dr. Taylor the owner of the house flew back immediately to deal with
the matters and the necessary closing reports about the incident.
 A month later, Mrs. Liz Utterman and the deceased´s wife, filed for a
law suit for negligence and careless acts to cause harm and resulting
in her husband´s sudden death.
 After learning of the charges, both the community and the police
were uphold by the Mrs. Utterman´s lawsuit and the possible merits
the case could have in a court of law, a jury and the final judge´s
decision.
 One of the issues the judge had to considerate, was the fact that the
deceased was known to the community as an out-law and always
getting away with his criminal actions. On the other hand, the
question in the judge´s mind was “What if instead of the suspect
 being dead, would have been a child and who out of curiosity or
picking up a soccer ball would have entered the premises?
 Under this criteria the judge filed in favor the widow and Dr. Taylor
had to pay for general damages, special damages and punitive
damages in the amount of 3.5 million dollars.
 Do you agree with with judge’ decision?