EXAM PREP

RWU LAW ENRICHMENT 2019

PROFESSOR THOMPSON

CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT IS EVERYWHERESTATE V. EVIL QUEEN FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER

POOR CHARLIE BROWN V. LUCY FOR BATTERY

THREE BEARS V. GOLDILOCKS FOR TRESPASS

CLASS ROADMAP

• THE HYPOTHETICAL

• MISTAKE NUMBER ONE

• THE FIRST STEPS

• WALKING THROUGH A HYPOTHETICAL

• YOUR TURN

THE HYPOTHETICAL

MISTAKE NUMBER ONE:THE ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND THE WHOLE

SOLUTION: DIVIDE EVERY HYPO INTO

MANAGEABLE COMPONENTS.

• THE RESPONSE IS A SERIES OF PARAGRAPHS, EACH CORRESPONDING TO AN ISSUE.

• HOW TO ANALYZE A HYPO IS TOO LARGE AND UNWIELDY A PROPOSITION. IF HYPOS CAN BE

BROKEN DOWN INTO UNITS, THEN YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE EACH UNIT. THE SUM

TOTAL OF THE ANALYSIS OF EACH UNIT IS THE SERIES OF WELL-ORGANIZED PARAGRAPHS –

ONE FOR EACH ISSUE.

ANALYZE ONE ISSUE AFTER ANOTHER USING HEADINGS AND PARAGRAPHS

• YOU ANALYZE ONE ISSUE AFTER ANOTHER, GIVING MORE

ANALYSIS WHERE INDICATED, ONE PARAGRAPH AFTER ANOTHER.

• A SERIES OF ISSUES DISCUSSED IN A SERIES OF PARAGRAPHS WITH

APPROPRIATE HEADINGS MAKES A WELL-WRITTEN ESSAY ANSWER.

PLAN BEFORE YOU WRITE, BUT PLAN, WRITE, PLAN, WRITE, PLAN, WRITE

• PLAN BEFORE YOU WRITE:

• PLAN FOR NO MORE THAN ¼ TO 1/3 OF TIME. ON 60 MIN. HYPO, NO MORE THAN 15

MINUTES. 90 MINUTES, NO MORE THAN 30. IF THREE HOURS, ONE HOUR TO PLAN, BUT YOU

DO NOT HAVE LUXURY TO RELAX AND PLAN. SO ANOTHER MODIFICATION:

• SPEND NO MORE THAN 10 OR 12 MINUTES PLANNING BEFORE YOU GET SOMETHING DOWN

ON PAPER. IF 1/3 OF THE ALLOTTED TIME IS 20 MINUTES, BREAK IT INTO TWO 10 MINUTE

PLANNING SESSIONS. PLAN FOR 10 MINUTES, WRITE. THEN PLAN AGAIN. THEN WRITE.

• IF YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PLAN, PLAN FOR 15 MINUTES, WRITE. THEN PLAN FOR 15

MINUTES, WRITE.

• PLAN FOR NO MORE THAN 10 TO 15 MINUTES AT A TIME. PLAN, WRITE; PLAN, WRITE;

PLAN, WRITE THROUGHOUT YOUR EXAM.

FIRST STEPS ON SCRAP PAPER

1. TURN OVER THE EXAM & PULL OUT THE SCRAP PAPER

2. WRITE DOWN YOUR PREPARED “BULLET LIST” OF

TOPICS/CONCEPTS/”LEGAL TOOLS”

3. SKIM EXAM INSTRUCTIONS, COUNT THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

AND PAGES

4. PLAN & NOTE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR EACH QUESTION OR

SECTION

FIRST STEPS

1. READ THE CALL OF THE QUESTION

2. ON SCRAP PAPER, IDENTIFY THE “CONFLICT PAIRS”

OR “PARTIES IN DISPUTE” (THE LAWSUITS)

3. IDENTIFY EACH PARTY’S “PRACTICAL GOAL”

THEN START TO “OUTLINE” STARTING ON THE FACT PATTERN

1. GO THROUGH THE FACTS & FOR EACH PARTY, IDENTIFY WHAT “LEGAL TOOLS” WILL HELP

HIM OR HER REACH THEIR PRACTICAL GOAL. THAT LEGAL TOOL MIGHT BE A CAUSE OF

ACTION, A CRIME, A DEFENSE (IT SHOULD BE LISTED ON YOUR “BULLET LIST”)

2. CIRCLE FACTS AS YOU MATCH THEM TO YOUR “LEGAL TOOLS” (DRAW LINE TO MARGIN)

3. ONCE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL “LEGAL TOOLS,” STOP.

4. IN YOUR “OUTLINE CHART” ON YOUR SCRAP PAPER, NOTE WHICH LEGAL TOOLS EACH

PARTY WILL ASSERT

5. MAKE SOME NOTES TO YOURSELF ABOUT THEM IN YOUR CHART

YOUR OUTLINEA $ for lack of enjoyment to land B not pay $ for flying drone over land

Trespass to Land

- Intentional entry? - Intentional easy “directed”

(100 feet above probably low enough her

enjoyment, plus drone noise? And pictures? )

- Land of another? Yes

- Without permission? (express implied) apply both

Not trespass to Land

Not intentional – loser “directed”

Entry? – 100 feet above possibly?

Without permission (express no) implied maybe

B get $ for drone A not pay $ for drone

Conversion (argue each element using facts one issue,

and one paragraph at a time in IRAC form)

- Intent – Purpose or know with substantial cert

- Destruction of Personal Property (drone yes)

Not conversion (within these IRACs address what A

would argue on the facts)

Affirmative Defense?

Protection of Real Property –

Define

Apply to facts arguing both sides

START TO WRITE USING THIS RECOMMENDED APPROACH

•ONCE YOU HAVE A PLAN IN YOUR CHART (LEGAL

TOOLS IDENTIFIED FOR EACH SIDE)

•WITH SOME NOTES TO GUIDE YOUR ANALYSIS

(LONGER ANALYSIS, SHORTER ANALYSIS)

GO TO YOUR EXAM & START TO WRITE

• FIRST, STATE THE CONFLICT PAIR YOU ARE DISCUSSING ( A V. B)

• NEXT, USING A HEADING, STATE THE LEGAL TOOL’S NAME (TRESPASS TO LAND)

• TRESPASS TO LAND REQUIRES THE 1) INTENTIONAL ENTRY 2) OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER

3) WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION

QUESTION ONE – STATE & DEFINE THE LEGAL TOOL.

• A V. B. FOR TRESPASS

• TRESPASS TO LAND REQUIRES THE 1) INTENTIONAL ENTRY 2) OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER

3) WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION . (POLICY FOR THIS RULE?) ADD THAT HERE.

ADDRESS ONE ISSUE AT A TIME IN WELL-ORGANIZED PARAGRAPHS (SOME LONGER, SOME SHORTER) -

IRACS

• 1) INTENTIONAL ENTRY? - THE DEFENDANT MUST INTEND (PURPOSE OR KNOWING WITH

SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY) ENTER THE LAND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE TRESPASS. CAUSING

AN OBJECT OR THING TO ENTER SOMEONE’S PROPERTY CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED TRESPASS.

HERE, B “DIRECTED” HIS DRONE TOWARD A’S PROPERTY AND THEREFORE HAD A PURPOSE FOR

THE DRONE TO END UP ABOVE HER PROPERTY. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE 100 FEET

ABOVE HER PROPERTY IS AN “ENTRY” OF HER LAND. IT PROBABLY IS BECAUSE A PERSON

OWNS THE LAND ABOVE HER PROPERTY TO A CERTAIN LEVEL. HERE, SHE WOULD ARGUE THAT

THE 100 FEET ABOVE IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO HER ENJOYMENT OF HER PROPERTY THAT IT

SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ENTRY. HE WOULD ARGUE THAT 100 FEET IS FAR ENOUGH ABOVE

HER LAND THAT IT’S NOT ENTRY. IT’S LIKELY AN ENTRY BECAUSE NOT SO HIGH THAT IT WOULD

NOT IMPACT HER USE OF THE LAND.

ISSUE 2 & 3 ADDRESSED SEPARATELY

• 2) OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER?- HERE, THE PROPERTY IS THE LAND OF ANOTHER BECAUSE B DOES NOT

OWN IT OR HAVE ANY INTEREST IN IT.

• 3) WITHOUT THE OWNER’S PERMISSION ?– PERMISSION CAN BE EXPRESS (STATED) OR IMPLIED. IMPLIED

PERMISSION OCCURS WHERE A REASONABLE PERSON IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD BELIEVE THAT HE

HAD PERMISSION TO ENTER THE LAND. HERE, A GAVE NO EXPRESS PERMISSION FOR B TO ENTER. THERE

MAY BE AN ARGUMENT THAT SHE IMPLIED PERMISSION BY NOT SAYING ANYTHING TO B DURING THE

FIRST TIMES THAT HE FLEW HIS PLANE OVER HER LAND. HE MIGHT ARGUE THAT HE REASONABLY COULD

BELIEVE THAT SHE HAD NO OBJECTION TO HIS FLYING THE DRONE ABOVE HER LAND. HOWEVER, SHE

WOULD ARGUE THAT ALLOWING HIM TO FLY IT ONCE WAS NOT IMPLIED PERMISSION BECAUSE A

REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ALLOW ONE MISTAKE. AS SOON AS SHE REALIZED HE WAS INTENTIONALLY

DOING IT, SHE OBJECTED. HE PROBABLY HAD NO PERMISSION TO FLY THE DRONE OVER THE LAND.

CONCLUDE ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION BRIEFLY

• A LIKELY HAS A PRIMA FACIE CLAIM OF TRESPASS AGAINST B.

A v. B for trespass

Trespass to land requires the 1) intentional entry 2) of the land of another 3) without authorization . (policy

for this rule?) add that here.

Intentional entry? - The defendant must intend (purpose or knowing with substantial certainty) enter the land

that is the subject of the trespass. Causing an object or thing to enter someone’s property can also be

considered trespass. Here, B “directed” his drone toward A’s property and therefore had a purpose for the

drone to end up above her property. The question is whether the 100 feet above her property is an “entry” of

her land. It probably is because a person owns the land above her property to a certain level. Here, she would

argue that the 100 feet above is close enough to her enjoyment of her property that it should be considered an

entry. He would argue that 100 feet is far enough above her land that it’s not entry. It’s likely an entry because

not so high that it would not impact her use of the land.

2) Of the land of another?- here, the property is the land of another because B does not own it or have any

interest in it.

3) Without the owner’s permission ?– permission can be express (stated) or implied. Implied permission occurs

where a reasonable person in the circumstance would believe that he had permission to enter the land. Here,

A gave no express permission for B to enter. There may be an argument that she implied permission by not

saying anything to B during the first times that he flew his plane over her land. He might argue that he

reasonably could believe that she had no objection to his flying the drone above her land. However, she

would argue that allowing him to fly it once was not implied permission because a reasonable person would

allow one mistake. As soon as she realized he was intentionally doing it, she objected. He probably had no

permission to fly the drone over the land.

A likely has a prima facie claim of trespass against B.

ANY QUESTIONS?

CAN YOU APPLY THIS APPROACH TO THESE NEW FACTS?

LET’S LOOK AT THE HYPOTHETICAL INVOLVING

THIS POTENTIAL BURGLARY?