Spring Class Two

1. Spring Class Two Reviewing Prior Memo

2. Class Agenda • Issues with the prior paper and grades • Paragraphing Issues • Analysis Exercise

3. Title in “Re” line Re line should include enough information that it will distinguish the memo from others in the file. It does not have to be a complete sentence. Not too vague, but not a paragraph. • Not: Memorial’s Employee Handbook • Not: Memorial Hospital wrongly fired Patterson. Can she sue for violation of the employee handbook provisions? • OK: Validity of employee handbook as an employment contract

4. Statement of Facts Begin by answering three questions : Who is your client? What is his problem? What have your been asked to do?

5. Statement of Facts • Include all facts that could be used to argue either side of the question • Include background facts that will help the reader understand what is going on, even if not legally significant • Facts that help the reader understand what is not an argument • Facts should be in some recognizable order • Facts should be in the past tense. Only legal concepts: issues, statements of rules, etc. should be in the present tense • All details are not good • All details are not bad

6. Spelling I halve a spelling checker,It came on my PC.It plane lea marks four my revueMiss steaks aye can knot sea.I've run this poem threw it,I'm sure your please to know,Its letter-perfect in it's weigh,My checker tolled me sew.

7. Intro Paragraph • It should include a broad statement of the issue • A clear statement of the overall rule presented in such a way that the reader understands how it applies • What is a requirement? • What is a factor the court may consider? • What is a precondition to application? • Are there exceptions? • What is the source of the rule? • It should end with a road map to your conclusions on the sub-issues including very briefly how you reached those conclusions

8. Steps to Analyzing a Legal IssueMallory’s Bar Analysis First, consider the facts of the present case and the holding in the precedent to determine what is the legal issue Second, look at Mallory’s bar to define the general standard the court will apply Third, present the application of the standard in Mallory’s bar as an example of how the standard will be applied in the present case Fourth, analyze how the court will likely hold in the present case in light of what has been held in the precedent Fifth, clearly state your conclusion on that sub-issue

9. The question is Joe’s Bar’s liability. In Mallory, the bar was held liable when its bartender served five boiler makers in an hour and a half to a customer who was visibly intoxicated when he entered the bar. Id. In this case, the court will not find Joe’s Bar liable because there were only two drinks served. That is quite a few less than the five drinks served in the precedent. The court will likely hold that there is a big difference between five drinks and two drinks and hold that Joe’s bar is not liable.

10. The question is whether Joe’s Bar caused Melchior’s accident because of the alcohol its employee served to Melchior. A person who serves alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person is liable for injuries caused by the intoxicated person. Mallory, p. 1. In this case, the bar was held liable when its bartender served five boiler makers in an hour and a half to a customer, who after he left the bar, had a car accident severely injuring the other driver. Id.

11. The question is whether Joe’s Bar is liable for the injuries caused by Melchior’s accident because of the alcohol its employee served to Melchior. A person who serves alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person is liable for injuries caused by the intoxicated person. Mallory, p. 1. In Mallory, the bar was held liable when its bartender served five boiler makers in an hour and a half to a customer who was visibly intoxicated when he entered the bar. Id.

12. In the present case, Joe, the bartender, remembered that Art was high after two drinks and then served him one more. Since Joe served an additional drink to a person he knew was high, Joe’s Bar is guilty. The rule only requires that the defendant serve additional alcohol; it does not specify a quantity. Thus, Joe’s Bar is liable.

13. In the present case, Joe, the bartender, remembered that Art was high after two drinks and then served him one more. Like the bartender in Mallory, Joe served an additional drink to a person he knew was high. Assuming the drink Joe served was alcohol just like a boilermaker is alcohol, Joe served a drink to a person who was drunk. The rule from Mallory only requires that the person serve additional alcohol; it does not specify a quantity. Thus, Joe’s Bar is liable for the injuries caused by Melchior’s accident.

14. In the present case, Joe, the bartender, remembered that Art was high after two drinks and then served him one more. Like the bartender in Mallory, Joe served an additional drink to a person he knew was high. Even though he served Melchior only one drink, rather than the five served in Mallory, this does not diminish the Bar’s liability because the rule only requires that the person serve additional alcohol; it does not specify a quantity. Thus, Joe’s Bar is liable for the injuries caused by Melchior’s accident.