Legal Research & Writing : Week of 17 October

• Conferences sign-up.
• Two questions presented: provocation and lawfully there
• Sample 3 in the book is bad: don't have lists.
• We'll have an introduction.
• Do you want QP before facts? Yes, if you write generically. If you make reference to specifics (i.e., Slobber, Maya), then after facts. We can pick.
• No quotes or citations in QP or BA.
• Under Illinois law, was Maya in a place where she was lawfully entitled to be, given that she had been invited onto the property, but warned that a section of the yard was off-limits? [this is pretty good, but doesn't mention that she got bit while she was there]
• Also, don't say Plaintiff or Defendant: there's no case yet.
• Deb's: Under Illinois law, was Maya in a place where she was lawfully allowed to be when she approached Slobber to retrieve the ball, even though she had twice been warned to avoid the dog, and told to stop before reaching him?
• Brief answer: Probably not. The relevant Illinois statute requires the victim to be in a place she is lawfully allowed to be for recovery. Though Maya had been invited to Justin's to practice catching, shw was twice warned to stay away from Slobber. Further, as she chased the errant ball, she was told to stop.
• We can be direct and matter-of-fact here, and also brief. We will explain the matter in depth in the Discussion section.
• Two parts of provocation: was there an action that provoked? was the dog's response reasonable?
• Under Illinois law requiring a victim seeking recovery not provoke the dog, did Maya provoke Slobber [when she chased the errant ball Justin had thrown] [even though she did not throw the ball that hit the dog]?
• The plan:
  • Intro
  • Statement of Facts
  • QP
    1. Provocation
    2. Lawfully there
  • BA
    1. Provocation
    2. Lawfully there
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion (just one)
• See the "Local Rules" in the syllabus. Especially see about citations of the facts.
• Note that the model memo follows the pattern of having one-sentence headers. This is optional, but I like it. Do not use headers in place of transition sentences: it should read fluidly.
• Citation grader will submit a grade (1-5); Deb will figure out how to factor that into the grade. Work hard on the citations: they are always a source of aggravation.
• Statement of facts: what are the legally significant facts, and how will they be organized?
  • Bit by dog
  • Dog owned by Dareas
  • Age, maybe: (she's 13, has been there many times, familiar w/dog)
  • Justin threw the ball
  • Warned away from dog
  • Told to stop
  • Wound is of moderate severity
  Basically, anything we're going to reference in our discussion section should be mentioned here.
• You can organize chronologically or topically. Chronologically is a good bet here. Do not mix argument with facts: statement of facts should be as neutral as possible. There should be some flow, not just a list.
• Introduction: We need to ID our client, and describe the situation.
• Introduction: "The question at hand is to determine whether Maya, a minor through her parents, has a claim under Illinois dog bite statute. In order to evaluate this, yadda-yadda." Essentially say why we are writing, with a look ahead to the end.
• Avoid partisan or emotional language. Be objective.
• General comments:
  • Don't say "the defense could argue" or "we could argue"
  • Just state the law and the facts
  • We're not trying to come up with theoretical defenses or arguments. Avoid theory in general: be direct, know the law, apply the law.
  • Use Sieworth for continuous provocation: the court says it doesn't matter that the plaintiff wasn't the last provoker. So we say, "in reading Sieworth, it seems as though Maya's situation fits the pattern of blabla." Note that this isn't directly applicable, but say that it seems analogous.
  • We can note where there is ambiguity or inadequacy.
  • Avoid contractions
• Use Kirkham for a definition "lawfully be:" note that it wasn't the decisive issue, but that the logic is helpful.
• Point out that things made it to appellate court: that means that the jury found that he WAS lawfully there. Sieworth demonstrates that things aren't as simple as we might think: a jury can find for the plaintiff even if the facts are outrageous.
• If we want an Applicable Statute section, it goes between BA and Discussion.