Sample Legal Memo

Mr. Potbelly holds a garage sale at his home. Mr. Slim Jim stops by the sale and upon noticing a rare piece of art pottery offers a price of $100 for the art that is marked $250. Mr. Potbelly accepts Mr. Slim Jim’s offer. Mr. Potbelly informs Mr. Slim Jim he is selling his home because he is moving up north because he has lost his job. Mr. Slim Jim asks how much he is selling it for and Mr. Potbelly informs him he is thinking $75,000. Mr. Slim Jim offers him $70,000 cash for the property which Mr. Potbelly immediately accepts the offer. Mr. Slim Jim informs Mr. Potbelly that he will be back in one hour with a cashiers’ check made payable to Mr. Potbelly. Mr. Potbelly says “Great!” and that while Mr. Slim Jim

The Evaluation Form must be attached to your Project 3 submission. I will deduct .25 points if the Evaluation Form is not the first page of your submission. Please note that I deduct 2 points per day that a project is late.

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

This letter is to inform you, that your tax appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 6, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. The hearing will be held at the County Office building located at 211 Race Road. The court room is located on the 5th floor.

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

Under Vermont Common Law does Mr. John Ellis’ recently created chicken coop in a residential neighborhood constitutes a private nuisance when Mr. Ellis’ rooster and the hens generate odors and noises that could be considered unreasonable and substantial interferences with Ms. Alicia Carmody’s enjoyment of her yard?

After the trial and listening to the statements of the prosecutors involved, it is now up to the jury to decide what happens in this case. Dana Ivy is said to have been drunk, which resulted in a car accident on the morning of December 17. However, the defensive side says she was not intoxicated and that was not the cause of this accident occurring at the intersection of Justice and Eagle street. This accident resulted in severe injuries to Terry Vickers, the other citizen involved in this accident. Terry Vickers wants to charge Sandy Hearst, the host of a party that occurred on the night of December 16, for the damages. The plaintiff argues that Sandy was pushing drinks on Dana Ivy making her unable to operate a vehicle with control. Although Dana Ivy states to have not been drunk and that the accident was

Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an owner, lessee, or occupant of land may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land if:

Ms. Coleman telephoned to notify me of the mediation session scheduled June 30, 2016, with Ms. Lisa D. Canty.

Good evening Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and opposing counsel. Tonight you heard the testimony and evidence in Roughed Grouse High School's attempt to hide, justify, and deny their negligent actions. In order to prove Roughed Grouse High School's negligence resulting in the death of Jordan Simon, I, along with my co-counsel, had to prove our case, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but simply by a preponderance of evidence. In other words, if you were to put the evidence favoring the case of the plaintiff and evidence favorable to the defendant on a scale, we the plaintiff would have to make the scales tip ever so slightly in our favor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have done just that. We have proved to you tonight

Once a claimant is catagorised as such, the ruling from Page v Smith is to be held: providing personal injury is foreseeable- whether physical or psychiatric- there is no need to establish whether psychiatric injury was foreseeable. Being inside the danger zone meant that it was highly probable that Hank would receive physical injuries and as such, it did not matter whether his relapse into severe depression was unforeseeable or not. To conclude, Hank would be allowed recovery for the psychiatric harm he suffered as a result of NMM 's negligence.

As requested, I have reviewed the facts of the above-captioned file, along with the applicable law and summarized same in this memorandum. Mrs. Mary Smith suffered an injury to her right ankle in an automobile accident on 10/3/95. After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Mrs. Smith still suffers daily. I have researched the facts regarding a personal injury action against Paul Joseph, as well as a medical malpractice action against the medical providers.