One of the most important skills to learn as a paralegal student is "Briefing a Law Case.
1. Read information about briefing law cases - http://law-materials.pbwiki.com/briefingcases
2. Read about case citations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_citation
3. Pick a recent case from the list. any case which interests you. Click on "briefed" case and read the summary and using the citation given for the case, find the case using Google Scholar, (see videocast on how to use Google Scholar) -
How to use Google Scholar - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpjX_ZtbMr8
How to use Google Scholar - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YmzXdJ8IH4
4. Then answer the following questions, and post your work under the moodle class assignment. Remember you must include the name of the case and full case citation including the year the case was decided to get full credit on this assignment. (see below sample) - look at whiteboard and
Brief a Law case - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl8_GffmHxw
Brief a Law case - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iuhDr9L6n0
a. complete name of the case - eg. see "Agency" then 1st case . Hartford Ins. vs. Clark then find case with google scholar - see Hartford
b. complete case citation and year decided - 727 F.Supp.2d 765 (2010)
c. state the name of the party who won the case (not appellant, etc but the real actual name) - Hartford won the case
d. the legal issue involved in the case - vicarious liability of agent for subagent's fraud - use of "foreseeability" and "reasonableness" as a standard. Is Agent liable for fraud committed by a subagent
e. the holding of the court (RULE)- Agent is responsible for "fraud" of subagent, if it is "foreseeable", and agent does not exercise "due diligence" and "reasonableness" in the matter which could/should have revealed/discovered the fraud.
f. the rationale or legal reasoning used by the court to decide the case -
vicarious liability extends to an agent. There is a duty or burden imposed on agents (principles) in an agency relationship which requires "reasonableness" used to discover misconduct of an agent/subagent, but there is a practical limitation also of whether such conduct was "foreseeable" and whether principle/agent took "due diligence" in taking "reasonable" steps to discover the fraud.
good luck.
Prof J.
updated: 8/30/12