ss 8, writing exercise

- The plaintiff testified and so did three witnesses on behalf of the corporation.
Answer) After the plaintiff testified, three witnesses testified for the corporation.

-  The court should decide this purely legal question.
Answer) The court decides this purely legal question.

- The court should deny M's motion ...
Answer) The court should deny McCormick’s motion for partial summary judgment on the duty to defend.

- The court may disregard plaintiff's opposition because it violates ...
Answer)  The court should disregard Thompson’s opposition because it violates California Rule of Court 313.

IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1301.Opinion.2-2-2015.1.PDF

Contrary to Cuozzo’s contention, we hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR. We affirm the Board’s final determination, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Board’s obviousness determination, and the Board’s denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend.

ss7 writing exercise

1. 1.      Ms. L… accrued considerable debt to her family and others, during her struggle to provide for her children as a single parent.

---> While struggling as a single parent to provide for her children, Ms. L… accrued considerable debt to her family and others.

1. 2.      Chesapeake incorrectly asserts that it is not a proper defendant in this case, and, therefore, that relief cannot be granted.

---> Chesapeake incorrectly asserts that it is not a proper defendant in this case, and that therefore relief cannot be granted.

1. 3.      The court ruled that Office McGee’s primary role is not law enforcement because he was acting more as a school employee than as a police officer.
2. --> Finding that Officer McGee was acting more as a school employee than as a police officer in searching Robinson, the court ruled that an official's primary role is not law enforcement.

P.21 ss6 writing exercise

1.  Appellee Allied Indemnity of New York respectfully suggests that oral argument should not be allowed because the Texas Supreme Court (in National Union case) and this Court (in Constitution State case) decided dispositive issue.

Also, the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments.

Oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

--> Oral argument would be of little benefit for two reasons.  First, the dispositive issue has recently been decided by the Texas Supreme Court ( ) and by this Court ( ). Second, the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the record.

2.  No Kansas cases explicitly held that a corporation is required to have a valid business purpose to engage in certain transactions like mergers, consolidations, or a sale of assets followed by a dissolution and liquidation.  But, in a 1994 case involving a cash-out merger where the dissenters claimed the defendant's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the dissenters, the Supreme Court of Kansas cited as one of the trial court's holdings that a corporation does not need to show a valid corporate purpose of eliminating stockholders.  (88 words)

Answer) No Kansas cases explicitly hold that Kansas requires a corporation to have a valid business purpose to engage in certain specified transactions.  But in 1994 the Supreme Court of Kansas decided a case that bears on the question.  The case involved a cash-out merger in which the dissenters claimed that the defendant's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to them.  The court found that a corporation need not show a valid corporate purpose of eliminating stockholders.

3.  The court of appeals noted that the EPA had issued a permit for the applicant to discharge wastewater that would occur from the outfall pipe.  Holders of the permit are generally exempted from complying with the EIS requirement.  Accordingly, the Corps, a holder of the permit, did not need to analyze the environmental implications of the discharges from the outfall pipe and instead considered only the construction and maintenance of the pipeline itself.  The court held that the issuance of the permit is not a major federal action.   

--> The court of appeals cited two salient points.

P.18 writing exercise. ss5

1. Even if the fog caused injury to Roelke, Amskills had no duty to prevent the injury that Amskills could not have been expected to foresee.

--> Even assuming that the fog caused Roelke's accident, Amskills had no duty to prevent such a freakish and unforeseeable injury.

2.  Before the initial offering, the underwriters, any officers, directors, or employees did not know any facts suggesting that "Palm Harbor" could not be completed on schedule and in accordance with specifications.

--> Before the initial offering, no one knew or had reason to know that Palm Harbor could not be timely completed in accordance with specifications.

3.  Beale failed to allege facts to establish that competition among the nation's law schools would be reduced or that the public has been in any way injured. Thus, her restraint-of-trade claim would be dismissed.

--> Beale has not alleged facts that, if true, would establish either public injury or reduced competition among the nation's law schools.  Thus, her restraint-of-trade claim must be dismissed.

4.  The Business Corporation law address that a New York corporation indemnifies only its employees.

--> The Business Corporation law does not address whether a New York corporation can indemnify nonemployees.

5.  The court stated that a duty to disclose the illegal conduct of persons who seek election to a public office through political campaigns exists in only a few instances of the cases it examined.

--> The court examined many cases and found few that imposed a duty to disclose the illegal conduct of candidates for elected office.