Dear Student, please read the assignment requirements. If the student failed to follow these requirements a ZERO would be issued for failing to follow the grading requirements.
1. Answer these five questions using chapter 3 and 4 from your textbook. The students would need to log in to cengage.com enter their email address and default password to access the textbook.
2. You need to state the Issue, the rule, the analysis, and the conclusion for each question.
3. The issue part is easy, and nobody misses that, it should be NO LONGER than one sentence, and it would be the same question you are being asked.
4. The rule needs to be identified using the textbook and using cengage.com, you would need to read chapter 3 and 4 to find the rule and you would need to state the page number of the textbook where you found the rule.
5. The analysis needs to discuss the rule using facts.
6. The conclusion needs to be ONE sentence long and it answers the questions.
**ANY FAILING TO FOLLOW THESE REQUIRNMENTS WOULD RESULT IN A 0% FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT **
**PLEASE STATE THE PAGE NUMBER IN YOUR TEXTBOOK WHILE IDYNTIFYING THE RULE**
**OUTSIDE RESOURCES ARE NOT ALLOWED**
That’s your cengage login info to access the book
Email: XXXXXXXXXX
Password: Mo.mo1999
Here is your questions for this week….
Use this fact pattern for problems #1-3. Aida rented a small house in Portland, Oregon from a married couple, Jane and Stone, who lived in Vancouver, Washington. Last summer, Jane and Aida got in an argument over a trivial matter. The next day, Jane verbally told Aida to “get out” of the house immediately so her daughter’s family could move in. A few days later, Jane and Stone went to the rental house and found Aida still living there. They proceeded to throw Aida’s belongings out of the house. They also called Haul-Away, Inc., a moving corporation from Vancouver, to come and haul away all of Aida’s personal property. Haul-Away did as instructed despite Aida’s protest. Aida was eventually locked out of the house and became homeless for a few days until her parents, who flew in from Maine, helped her out. She and her parents drove to Haul-Away office and demanded the return of her belongings. Haul-Away stated it had no idea what they were talking about.
1. Service of Process. Aida sued her landlords, Jane and Stone, for various violations of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act in Oregon state court. She also sued Haul-Away for conversion (theft) of her personal property. The landlords were successfully served. As for Haul-Away, the summons and complaint were served on the person at the front desk in its Vancouver office. That person told the process server that she was not employed by HaulAway, but was just a friend of the receptionist, who went on a quick errand to a coffee shop. Is service on defendant Haul-Away sufficient or valid?
2. Motion for Summary Judgment. In Aida’s case above, assume that Haul-Away was properly served and Aida was allowed to proceed with the lawsuit against Haul-way for allegedly committing the tort of conversion, which is an intentional act deprives the owner of personal property without the owner’s consent. Despite evidence indicating that Aida told the moving company numerous time not to touch her belongings, the trial court granted Haul-Away’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that Aida failed to show that Haul-Away intentionally deprived her of her belongings. Haul-Away claimed they thought the items belonged to the landlord and they had the landlord’s permission to remove the items, and because they didn’t know the item belonged to Aida, they could not have intentionally deprive her of her belongings. Aida appealed. Was the trial court correct in its decision to grant Haul-Away’s motion for summary judgment?
3. Motion for a New Trial. Aida’s case against the landlords went to trial. During voir dire, jurors were asked if any of them or their family members had been evicted from their rental home. One juror made no response, but it was later discovered that the juror’s brother was served with a no-cause eviction notice last year. When the trial court jury returned a verdict for Aida, the landlords moved for a new trial on the ground that the juror had violated his oath and failed to disclose pertinent information during voir dire. In opposing the motion, Aida submitted an affidavit signed by the juror in which the juror swore that he had not answered the question because he had not heard it and that his brother’s eviction had not influenced his judgment in the case. Did the juror’s failure to hear the question about the eviction constitute juror misconduct to the extent that the landlord’s motion for a new trial should be granted?
4. Equal Protection. Aida’s legal troubles with the landlords and the moving company were now behind her. She decided to visit her folks back in the east coast. During dinner one day, she learned from her mother about something troubling at her aunt’s workplace. Aida’s aunt, Irma, age forty-nine, had worked for a government-owned and -operated radio and television station in Washington DC for over a decade when, without any prior notice, she was suddenly transferred from her television program to a position in radio. Her replacement in the television program was a twenty-eight-year-old woman with less experience. Mozer, the administrator of the television channel, explained to a newspaper reporter that Irma was removed because they needed new faces to appeal to a wider and younger audience. Mozer believed Irma’s replacement would bring the change they were looking for. Aida then met with aunt Irma and encouraged her to sue Mozer. Irma then hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit against the station alleging in part that the transfer discriminated against her on the basis of age and therefore violated her rights under the equal protection clause. Mozer claimed that the transfer was for the purpose of maximizing viewership for the public television channel and therefore was a permissible action. Will the court agree with Mozer that the station did not violate Irma’s right to equal protection? (In answer this question, disregard the fact that Irma could have sued the station under a federal law prohibiting age discrimination in employment. She based her claim only on the equal protection clause. Just analyze the equal protection issue.)
5. Dormant Commerce Clause. After the eviction lawsuit, Stone and June, left the landlord business and moved to Nevada. They opened a store called “Tattle Toys” with a commitment to manufacture all its children toys and products in the US. They wanted to position “Tattle Toys” as the premier “Made in the US” brand. After a few years of opening, things started to look grim for Stone and June. It all started when independent research revealed that a few of Tattle Toys products were dangerously defective or contained high level of toxins. No one seemed to be bothered by this finding except for consumers in Colorado. Consumers in that state flooded their legislators’ offices with demands to restrict the interstate shipments of Tattle Toys products to Colorado due to concerns over their safety and quality. During this legislative session, the state of Colorado, pursuant to its police powers, passed a law that prohibited all baby and children products made by Tattle Toys to enter its borders. Tattle-Toys sued Colorado, alleging that the law imposes an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. Colorado argued that the law was valid because it had the right to protect its residents from harm. Did the Colorado law violate the dormant Commerce Clause by imposing unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? Discuss.