Comments for Casebriefs

Comment on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier by dirsane

dirsane — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:31:31 +0000

I would frame the issue, the rule and the holding a little differently.

Issue: Does a school violate First Ammendment rights of students by editing out from its paper produced as part of the school’s journalism curriculum?

Rule: School officials do not offend First ammendment rights by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonable related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Holding: Principal Reynolds acted reasonably in requiring the deletion from the May 13 issue of spectrum of the pregnancy article, the divorce article and the remaining articles that were to appear on the same pages of the newspaper.

Comment on People v. Berry by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 04:48:08 +0000

In England, they call this a “slow burn” type of provocation. I think the case was Ahluwalia?

Comment on United States v. Bagley by dgray

dgray — Wed, 11 May 2011 13:00:14 +0000

this has been very helpful in my studies…

Comment on Wright v. Newman by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:07:08 +0000

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel provides a substitute for consideration and there is foreseeable detrimental reliance on a gratuitous promise and injustice needs to be avoided. Something to that effect!

Comment on Bailey v. West by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:30:04 +0000

I think the appeal court gave a good explanation of why there was no “implied in fact” contract by basically stating that one cannot be forced into a contractual relationship where there is no mutual assent, meeting of the minds, etc…

Comment on Bailey v. West by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:27:11 +0000

“Implied in Fact contract is a contract inferred by the law because the acts or conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to assume that a contract exists between them even though the contract is never manifested by words.” Clancey’s “Outlaw” on Contracts, Northwestern California University School of Law, 2007.

Comment on Bailey v. West by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 04:12:13 +0000

“Mutual assent relates to the requirement of an initial agreement between the parties to enter into a contractual relationship and is established if a valid offer has been made by one party with a valid acceptance having been given by the other party prior to the termination of the offer.” Clancey’s “Outlaw” on Contracts, Northwestern California University School of Law, 2007.

Comment on Greiner v. Greiner by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 05:38:39 +0000

Would this case be considered under the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel? i.e. substitute for consideration, foreseeable detrimental reliance on a gratuitous promise, to avoid injustice! How about Implied in Fact contract, inferred by the law, when actions and conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances would lead a reasonable person to assume a contract exists?

Comment on Batsakis v. Demotsis by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:38:33 +0000

“Sufficiency of Consideration – Generally, courts do not require that the consideration benefit the offeree, or that it be of any substantial value, as long as it serves as an inducement for the promise of the other party. However, some courts have held that nominal consideration may not constitute a valid contract if the promisor’s promises are valued considerably higher than those of the promisee.” Clancey’s “Outlaw” on Contracts, Northwestern California University School of Law, 2007.

Comment on Hamer v. Sidway by rpbfinancial

rpbfinancial — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:24:14 +0000

“A legal detriment is a promise to do something that one is not legally obligated to do or to refrain from doing something that one is legally privileged to do.” definition from Clancey’s “Outlaw” on Contracts, Northwestern California University School of Law, 2007.

Seems to me that the Nephew, according to the definition supra, was in a legal detriment.