Part A-

1. Identify the law at the source of the dispute in DeWeerth v. Baldinger.

2. Identify the district court's holding regarding the defendant's motion to dismiss in DeWeerth v. Baldinger.

3. Identify the legal authorities on which the district court relies in ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss in DeWeerth v. Baldinger.

4. Identify the district court's holding regarding the plaintiff's motion to vacate the original judgment in DeWeerth v. Baldinger.

5. Identify the source(s) of law relied on by the district court in ruling on the plaintiff's motion to vacate the original judgment in DeWeerth v. Baldinger.

Part B-

"It turned out that the DeWeerth panel's prediction was wrong. However, by bringing this suit, DeWeerth exposed herself to the possibility that her adversaries would argue for a change in the applicable rules of law. By filing her state law claim in a federal forum, she knew that any open question of state law would be decided by a federal as opposed to a New York state court. The subsequent outcome of the Guggenheim decision does not impugn the integrity of the DeWeerth decision or the fairness of the process that was
accorded DeWeerth."

1. Which court makes this statement?

2. What has this court been asked to do?

3. Is the court correct to say that the earlier DeWeerth panel was "wrong"? If yes, explain why. If no, explain why not. If yes and no, explain both why and why not.

4. What does the court mean when it says that DeWeerth, by filing her claim in federal court, "exposed herself to the possibility that her adversaries would argue for a change in the applicable rules of law"? Would this not have been the case if DeWeerth had filed in state court? Why does this court bother saying this?

5. Please comment generally on the last sentence of this passage: "The subsequent outcome of the Guggenheim decision does not impugn the integrity of the DeWeerth decision or the fairness of the process that was accorded DeWeerth."

Part C-

"The question of what constitutes unreasonable delay in making a demand that starts the statute of limitations depends upon the circumstances of the case. . . . When the action is for the return of stolen property, one of the key circumstances is the nature and value of the property at issue. . . . It has been recognized that when the property is valuable art, the search efforts that may reasonably be expected of an owner may be more exacting than where the property is of a different kind or of a lesser value."

1. Why would the court say that a finding of reasonable delay depends "upon the circumstances of the case"? What does the statement that a finding of reasonable delay depends "upon the circumstances of the case" have to do with the concept of "common  law" reasoning?

2. Imagine that, a month after this decision, Joe sues Sally in New York two weeks after she refused his demand for the return of a vintage car that was stolen from Joe in New York 15 years ago. Sally paid $80,000 for the automobile last year. Joe made only a few
efforts to find the car when it went missing but recently saw it in Sally's driveway. In litigation, Sally argues that the lawsuit is time-barred under New York's statute of limitations. What is the strongest argument for Sally? What is the strongest argument
for Joe?

3. In the above hypothetical about the automobile, which party-Joe or Sally-will rely on the Second Circuit's holding in DeWeerth v. Baldinger (the decision from which the quote at the beginning of this section appears)? How will that party invoke the holding? And which party-Joe or Sally-will rely on dicta from that decision? How will that party invoke dicta?

Part D-

1. On page 74 of Whose Monet?, Judge Broderick states the following: "In resolving this issue, I am guided by Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon . . . a case upon which both parties rely" (emphasis added). Why do both the plaintiff and defendant in DeWeerth v. Baldinger relied on the Elicofon case? Please be as detailed as possible in answering this question, explaining the aspect(s) of the Elicofon case that supported each side.

2. Please provide three reasons why we have administrative agencies in the United States. Then, identify two advantages, and two disadvantages, of administrative agencies. Finally, provide an assessment of whether, in your view, administrative agencies are a
positive good for our legal system.

Part E-

1. Please provide two examples of decisions or cases we read in this course in which a court ruled in ways that promoted the stability or continuity of law. Identify the relevant cases and provide support for your argument. Make sure that you articulate why and how the cases you are referring to support the idea of legal stability or continuity.

2. Please provide two examples of decisions or cases we read in this course in which a court ruled in ways that promoted the flexibility or malleability of law. Identify the relevant cases and provide support for your argument. Make sure that you articulate why and how the cases you are referring to support the idea of flexibility or malleability.

3. Please provide an assessment of the positives and negatives of both stability and flexibility. Feel free to draw on any of the materials from this course that you like.