paralegal test 3 COMPLETED

docx

School

Claflin University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

313

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CountExplorationBat34

Grayson Griffin Test Three: Legal Documents and Legal Analysis CLS by BARBRI ASU Student ID: 900598086 Paralegal I Assignments@legalstudies.com 05/02/2022 Test #3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Section One Directions: Read the following rule and hypothetical situation. Using your knowledge of legal analysis, break the rule down to its elements, present a comprehensive phrasing of the issue/s involved and, applying the rule to the facts provided, analyze the rule as to the given hypothetical to answer the questions below: How does rule 4 apply to this case? Was the service valid? Why or why not? Rule 4 Elements of Rule 4 + Facts + Issue/s + Application = Conclusion A civil action is commenced (1) by filing a complaint with the court and serving the summons and complaint within ten days of the court filing date, or (2) by service of a summons and complaint. The summons and complaint must be served by a non-party who is at least eighteen Civil actions begin with the filing of a complaint, and the serving of a summons upon a defendant. Nancy is suing Ned for Divorce. Nancy served a summons on Ned, and then filed it with the court. Nancy is suing Ned for Divorce and has consequently served Ned with a summons and subsequently filed with the court. Rule 4 FRCP dictates that Nancy either files a complaint with the court and within ten days served said complaint along with the summons on the opposing party, or she may serve both the summons and the complaint. This must be accomplished by a non-party individual who is at least 18 years old. Nancy’s civil action is properly filed with the court, provided that she complies with the ten- day requirement. This information is not given in the facts, but assuming that service was made within ten days, than one can assume that the service was valid.

years of age. Memo #1: Complete Interoffice Memo #1: The Case of Sam Kant (see handout). Use chapters 10 & 16 in PCD and the section entitled “Memorandum of Law” in Chapter 12 of 8 th Statsky to aid in this assignment. Office Memorandum of Law To: Grayson Griffin, Paralegal From: Kip Douglas, Supervising Attorney Date: 05/02/2022 Case: People v. Sam Kant RE: Whether Mr. Kant can be convicted of shoplifting pursuant to Criminal Statute § 142.33 Shoplifting I. Statement of Assignment Your memorandum requested that I analyze the above captioned cased to discuss the likelihood of Mr. Kant prevailing in his shoplifting case. Please find a brief recitation of the facts followed by my legal analysis, conclusion, and recommendation. II. Facts On Wednesday, September 11 th, 2020, Sam Kant was arrested for shoplifting at Bilmart Department Store. Mr. Kant purchased a case of six four ounce cans of Hoover’s Baked Beans with Bacon. Upon arrival at his residence, which he shares with his wife, he was scolded for choosing a brand which she detests. Mrs. Kant planned to serve the beans for an engagement the following afternoon. Mr. Kant returned to Bilmart the next morning to exchange the beans at the prompting of his irate wife. Upon entering Bilmart, Mr. Kant found the customer service line to be extremely long as a result of a popular community food drive, sponsored by Bilmart. In an attempt to avoid waiting in line for a prolonged amount of time, Mr. Kant placed the beans in a shopping cart and set out to bean shelf. He then retrieved the type of beans that his wife preferred. After returning to the line, he saw that there was still a considerable wait time. Not wanting to further enrage his wife, Mr. Kant placed the beans in what he thought was the merchandise return basket and as he made his way to the door he was apprehended by store security who had observed his actions and reported him to the authorities. In his haste, Mr. Kant had neglected to realize that the shopping cart in which he placed the items meant for exchange, was in actuality a food drive donation basket, rather than the return bin as he intended. III. Issues Did Mr. Kant’s actions indicate that he intended to permanently deprive Bilmont of their beans?

IV. Rule The controlling statute for shoplifting is Criminal Statute § 142.33 which provides as follows: § 142.33. “A person is guilty of shoplifting when he takes away, moves, or removes merchandise, in a manner that causes the merchant to be permanently deprived of that merchandise.”. Controlling precedence on this matter would be People v. Stealer (2001) which held that: (1) a “taking” cannot occur until the suspect has left the store, and (2) until the suspected shoplifter has left the premises, mere possession of the merchandise fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. V. Analysis There are four elements of § 142.33: 1. A person 2. Takes away, moves or removes 3. Merchandise 4. In a manner that causes a merchant to be permanently deprived of that merchandise. People v. Stealer supplies additional insight providing that a “taking” cannot occur until a suspect has, (a) left the store and, (b) left the premises. Also relevant is that “mere possession” of merchandise alone does not constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the elements enumerated in Criminal Statute § 142.33 are only just satisfied with the most generous interpretation and application, the case at bar swings on the fourth element of the controlling statute. The “manner” in which the merchandise is manipulated does not immediately cause the merchant to be “permanently deprived” of it. Stealer reinforces this position by holding that merchandise is not considered “taken” until the “suspect” or “suspected shoplifter has left the store and/or the premises, which Mr. Kant obviously had not. VI. Conclusion Applicable statutory law as well as case law, dictate that Mr. Kant would not be found guilty of shoplifting. Section Two Review the case of The People of the State of Colorado v. Liggett (see Appendix A) and prepare a thumbnail brief as illustrated on page 350 in 8 th Statsky. CITATION: People v. Liggett, CSC CO 72 No. 14SA88 (2014)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

FACTS: An extensive recitation of the facts can be found in the appellate brief. For the purposes of this brief we will recite only the most pertinent facts. Mr. Liggett was stopped by a police officer while driving a vehicle that was associated with a missing person (Liggett’s mother) and an armed and dangerous suspect (Liggett himself). Officers attempted to detain Liggett, to which he responded by leading officers on a high speed pursuit which culminated in his detainment after a car wreck and a brief foot chase. During this period, Liggett made several unsolicited statements alluding to his inability to discern between right and wrong, His overall mental health and his likelihood of being prosecuted based on these two factors. Without acknowledging Liggett’s assertions, the officers placed him under arrest. On the suspicion that he was somehow involved with his mother’s disappearance, Liggett was asked if he would be willing to accompany Sergeant Peterson to the sheriff’s office to speak with some investigators. Replying in the affirmative, Liggett was taken to jail and to an interview room where he had agreed to meet and speak with investigators (Inv. Clark and Sgt. Peterson). Liggett spoke initially and primarily with Investigator Clark, then subsequently and separately with Sergeant Peterson. Statements were made in the interview, both voluntary and involuntary, prior to Appellant being read his Miranda rights. Liggett asked Clark, “Can you call a public defender to be here now?”. Clark replied “No.” Liggett didn’t directly respond to Clark’s denial of his request, but asked where he should initial and sign the Miranda waiver, which he did. Clark then tried several methods, yet Liggett held fast to his supernatural ramblings, and his position that his mother committed suicide. Liggett was charged with first degree murder, crime of violence, and vehicular eluding. Liggett pled not guilty by reason of insanity and made a pretrial motion to suppress statements made during the interview as involuntary. The trial court ruled that Clark violated Liggett’s Miranda rights by denying him access to an attorney when he requested one. The trial court also ruled that statements made prior to the Miranda violation were admissible. The People filed an interlocutory appeal. ISSUE: Whether the investigators coerced Liggett into speaking with them so as to overbear his will and render his statements involuntary. HOLDING: No. REASONING: The critical issue in determining voluntariness is whether the interviewer actually overbore the defendant’s will. In the case at bar, trial court never considered the nexus between the investigator’s action, and Liggett’s statements to them. Liggett’s own insistence to be heard was never taken in consideration. DISPOSITION: Revered and remanded to the trial proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision. Section Three Directions: Prepare the common pleadings as specified in the directions for Exercise #13 in

Workbook. You may use the generic format as illustrated in the PCD book. Mrs. Hatter is a new client. While standing in the check-out line at the local grocery store, Foods Deluxe , the automated conveyer belt caught her sleeve as she was placing her groceries on the belt. Flustered by Mrs. Hatter’s screams for help, the clerk was temporarily unable to turn off the belt. By the time the belt was shut off by another customer, Mrs. Hatter’s shoulder was dislocated and she had fainted, cutting her head on the counter as she fell. Mrs. Hatter does not have health insurance or disability insurance. She has not been able to work and has used all of her savings to pay her medical bills. She is unlikely to have a complete recovery and may never again be able to resume her work as an artist. Mrs. Hatter is also very upset about the loss of her one good outfit which was torn in the accident. Using the facts of this scenario and the format illustrated in Paralegal Career for Dummies, prepare a complaint on behalf of Mrs. Hatter. Also prepare the answer to the complaint on behalf of Foods Deluxe. You may embellish the facts to support the claim as long as you remain within the facts provided above. The names and addresses of any law firms, attorneys, etc., should be fictional. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LEXINGTON

Madeline Hatter, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) Complaint ) Civil Action No. : -vs ) Jury Trial Demanded ) Foods Deluxe ) DEFENDANT. ) _________________________________________ ) Now comes the Plaintiff, Madeline Hatter, by and through her attorney of record, Timothy Clay Kulp, Esq., who alleges that, on the 23 rd day of December in the year of 2022, the named defendant did cause her injury though negligently allowing the sleeve of her blouse to become ensnared in the conveyor belt while standing in the check- out line of the local grocery store which is owned and operated by the Defendant in the state of South Carolina, county of Lexington. The Plaintiff claims that she suffered the following injuries as a results of the Defendant’s negligence: 1. Bodily Harm in the form of a(n), (i) dislocated shoulder, and (ii) a lacerated scalp. 2. Emotional Distress from the trauma of the incident; and 3. Loss of Property from the irreparable damage done to the Plaintiff’s only “good outfit”. Wherefore the Plaintiff prays for judgement against the Defendant in the amount to be proven at the time of trial, including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, costs expended in filing this this suit, interest from the date of the commencement of this action, expert witness fees, attorney’s fees, and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. Dated: ___________________ s/_______________________________________ Timothy Clay Kulp, Esq. Post Office Box [21] 5 Correctional Road Ridgeland, South Carolina [29936] STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LEXINGTON

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Madeline Hatter, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) Answer to Complaint On Behalf of Defendant ) Civil Action No. : -vs ) Jury Trial Demanded ) Foods Deluxe ) DEFENDANT. ) _________________________________________ ) Now comes the Defendant, Foods Deluxe, by and through their attorney, Mr. Alex Murdaugh, who does hereby answer the Plaintiff’s complaint, and assert the following defenses: 1. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefor the Defendant must be dismissed as a party pursuant to SC. R. Civ. P. 8 & 12. 2. The Defendants deny each and every allegation of the complaint not hereinafter specifically admitted, qualified, or explained. Wherefore having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiff, the Defendants pray that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: ___________________ s/_______________________________________ Alex Murdaugh Post Office Box [2039] 15 Yellow Brick Rd Walterboro, South Carolina [29726] STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LEXINGTON

Madeline Hatter, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) Certificate of Service ) Civil Action No. : -vs ) ) Foods Deluxe ) DEFENDANT. ) _________________________________________ ) The undersigned attorney for the Defendant does hereby certify that service of the Answers on Behalf of Defendants in the above-captioned Action was made upon the Plaintiff’s attorney by placing the same in the United States Mail, First Class postage prepaid at the below listed address, clearly indicated on said envelope this said 8 th day of January, year of 2023, addressed as follows: Timothy Clay Kulp, Esq. Post Office Box 21 5 Correctional Rd. Ridgeland, SC 29936 Dated: ___________________ s/_______________________________________ Alex Murdaugh Post Office Box [2039] 15 Yellow Brick Rd Walterboro, South Carolina [29726]

paralegal test 3 COMPLETED

Related Documents