Has anyone read this case yet, if so, did they see an issue concerning the conditional aspect of the alleged assault by Sapp?The case book version of the decision seems extremely edited, the Court never analizes the immediate apprehension or fear element based on the condition that the wife "come around the table for some petting and loving".The Court never stipulates whether the facts in the case consititute an assault or not.She can avoid the apprehension or fear of an imminent unwanted intended contact by Sapp by merely not going around the counter. This act also does not inhibit her free will in the sense that shedoes not have a right, obligation or need to go behind the counter.The only other consideration is whether the placement of the condition, in and of itself, is an assault. The placement and her thought of the condition, which she does not have to abide by, can be construed as causing the apprehension, is it imminent?It would not be imminent if she did not go behind the counter. The condition is expressed quite clearly, and the avoidance of going around the counter should not have put her in apprehension of an imminent unwanted harmful or offensive contact.I have too much work to do for my civ pro class to deal with thisanymore; but, if someone knows more about the case please let me know.I'm finding law school to be a bit annoying in that you can not get into the true substantive nature of the cases. This requires an extreme amount of time and an in depth analysis of each case.I can't seem to help myself in the sense that when i read a case I tend to analize it to the 10th degree.Whatever, i'm going to take a break, drink a beer and relax.