Issue Spotting

[confusedatquinnipiac]

Paul should file a lawsuit in federal court against the manufacturer of the automobile,
and the dealership that sold him the car.

There is diversity of juristdiction in this case.

Is there diversity? I know there would be between Paul and Fred but it says that the dealership that sold him the car is from MI and so is Paul, so since they are both from MI wouldn't it destroy complete diversity between the parties?

[Peaches]

Note that issue spotting isn't the key to the exam.  Depends on the school and the professor, but a lot of professors only want you to focus on the important issues (and NOT spotting all the possible issues) or just answer their essay question.  Some schools/professors focus more on policy and normative theories. 

You should also read "Getting to Maybe" if you felt like you understood the material but your exam score was lower than expected.

[TPS Report]

Issue spotting was described by a Bar/Bri guy as the grey area surrounding a fact, not pointing out the fact.

Say you have a case which defines assault as "touching" another person in an unwelcome way.  Then say you have a man whose boss blew cigar smoke in his face.  Note: I have no idea if that's what assault is, since our Torts class didn't cover it.

The issue here is whether the case law that you learned applies to that situation.  Do the cigar smoke particles, which do have a physical substance, count as having touched the man's face?  Was his boss really assaulting him, when the instrumenet used was not attached to his boss (not an arm, leg, tooth, etc.)?  Issue spotting isn't saying, "Oh!  this fact is just like X v. Y, it's arguing the grey area--because exam hypos will never, ever line up exactly with cases you read in class. 

Summary: See the fact.  Find the cases that apply.  Then argue how they cases are similar and should apply.  Then argue how the cases are different and should not apply.  Then come to a conclusion.

[confusedatquinnipiac]

Issue spotting was described by a Bar/Bri guy as the grey area surrounding a fact, not pointing out the fact.

Say you have a case which defines assault as "touching" another person in an unwelcome way.  Then say you have a man whose boss blew cigar smoke in his face.  Note: I have no idea if that's what assault is, since our Torts class didn't cover it.

The issue here is whether the case law that you learned applies to that situation.  Do the cigar smoke particles, which do have a physical substance, count as having touched the man's face?  Was his boss really assaulting him, when the instrumenet used was not attached to his boss (not an arm, leg, tooth, etc.)?  Issue spotting isn't saying, "Oh!  this fact is just like X v. Y, it's arguing the grey area--because exam hypos will never, ever line up exactly with cases you read in class. 

Summary: See the fact.  Find the cases that apply.  Then argue how they cases are similar and should apply.  Then argue how the cases are different and should not apply.  Then come to a conclusion.

I know you wouldn't know since your class didn't cover it, but I just thought I'd help clarify for any intersted 0Ls who read the board.... a battery is an offensive or harmful contact with the person made without a valid excuse such as consent, so in this case the smoke blowing in the face might be a battery. An assault is putting another individual in the immenent apprehension of a battery; so if the man saw the smoke blowing in his face (which he did) it would be battery and assault. But if for whatever reason he was not put in apprehension of the contact, it could only be a battery.

[rollingthedice]

I am kind of surprised no one spotted the issue that this is some extremely blatant trolling and nothing more....

[old_student]

TPS Report - thanks for the example!