1. Read the following recent NH Supreme Court Case that reflects on the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
Assignment: Explain the court's reasoning for finding that the defendant (Shawn Johnson) had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to an aerial the search of his property.
This assignment should be able to be completed in a few paragraphs. This assignment is to get you used to reading case law and learning how to analyze the issues the issues the court is trying to address.
2. READ "A Manager's Dilemma" on pgs. 107-108 of the Bagley text regarding Confidential Settlements.
1. If you were a manager responsible for major litigation, what factors would you take into account in deciding whether to insist on a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement?
2. What factors might lead you to not insist on confidentiality?
3. Read the NH Supreme Court case Impact Food Sales, Inc. v. Carl Evans D/B/A Warehouse Club Distributing Company (2010)
This is an interesting case because it started as a breach of contract claim, with Impact Foods claiming that it did not receive goods from Evans (Warehouse Club Distributing Company) for which it had paid.
The Superior Court denied the defendants' motions to vacate judgment and dismiss the case. The defendant appealed based on insufficient service of process. (Think of this from a constitutional point of view).
In a few paragraphs, explain why service of process is so important in any case (criminal or civil), and whether or not you agree that the Supreme Court was correct in reversing the lower court's decision.
4. Shortly after hiring Adams, Goodyear Tires transferred him from Houston, which was near his home, to Bryan, Texas, to work on commercial trucks.
After the transfer, Adams continued to live in Houston and commuted two hours each way to work. Although Adams owned his own truck to commute to and from work.
Once or twice a week, Adams either picked up tires at the Houston shop on his way to work and delivered them to Bryan, or dropped tires from Bryan at the Houston shop on the way home. With his boss's knowledge, Adams also used the Goodyear truck during working hours to run some personal errands.
After Adams left work in the company car on a Friday, he delivered tires to the Houston shop at 7 p.m., stopped for Chinese takeout, and drove to his father's house, which was about ten miles from his home, where he ate dinner, drank a few beers, and fell asleep.
At 1 a.m. he woke up and drove the car to a store to buy cigarettes for his father. On the way back to his father's house, Adams fell asleep at the wheel and hit another car, severely injuring himself and the other driver.
After the driver sued Adams and Goodyear, Travelers Indemnity Company (Goodyear's insurance company) refused to cover Adams or to defend or indemnify him in the lawsuit, and Adams sued Travelers and Goodyear. Travelers argued that Adams was not an "insured" under its policy with Goodyear because he did not have permission to use the truck when the accident occurred.
Did Adams have implied permission to use the truck? Is Goodyear (and therefore Travelers) liable for damages arising out of the accident? If so, on what basis?
5. Read the following recent NH Supreme Court case (Goudreault v. Kleeman) in its entirety and then discuss the following:
The Court discusses in its opinion the theory of joint and several liability. In your own opinion, who should be found at fault in this case, if anyone?