1.

The fourteenth amendment grants every person equal protection and due
process under the law. A corporation is considered a citizen of any state where it is
incorporated and where a corporation has its principal place of business. The
principal place of business can be determined by identifying where the corporations
headquarter or the majority of its assets are located. In this case, in personam
jurisdiction grants both the Delaware and Nevada courts the authority to call LMN
Corp. to court. The plaintiff can state that the company is headquartered in
Delaware, as stated in the case, in order to sue LMN in Delaware. The plaintiff can
also state Nevada is where the company holds the majority of its assets and ships
its lawn mowers from in order to sue LMN in Nevada. Under long arm jurisdiction,
the plaintiff also has the choice to sue LMN in Texas. Texas long arm statute
allows Texas courts jurisdiction over foreign defendants, often dealing with
cyberspace. Texas courts will examine LMNs activities and forum within the state to
determine if it can enforce the long arm statute. The companys activities are
weighed on a scale ranging from passive (static website) to substantial (business
interaction). Given that LMN has a website where it conducts business, LMNs
activities are considered substantial. The plaintiff can also refer to the precedent
where offering goods for sale on the internet was found to establish minimum
contact.
In this case, the plaintiff has multiple options as to where to file suit against
LMN Corp. The plaintiff must consider which court is the most appropriate for his
particular case. The fourteenth amendment is important in determining where a
plaintiff can file a civil suit because it guarantees both parties due process of law.
Courts are required to protect defendants from facing litigation in numerous
locations while also protecting its states citizens from foreign infringements.
2.
Under the first amendment, Imogene has the right to free speech which does
not make her testimony before the City Council a crime. However, ABC Church can
bring forth a civil defamation suit against Imogene. To establish defamation several
components must be proven. First, there must be a publication to a third party, in
this case it is Imogenes testimony under oath to the City Council. Second, the
communication must be of an untrue statement of fact. Imogene stated ABC Church
engages in animal sacrifices, drug use, and extortion. All untrue. Third, the
publication causes injury to the plaintiffs reputation. ABC Church inferred that
Imogenes testimony swayed the City Council to deny the variance request. Now,
ABC Churchs reputation has been tarnished and it is left owning property that is
essentially useless causing financial injury as well. Fourth and last, ABC Church
must prove the statements are unprivileged. This poses the biggest challenge for
ABC Church. Imogene can state that her statements are privileged because they
were given in court and are protected under qualified privilege defense. ABC Church
could attempt to charge Imogene with perjury since she was under oath when she
made the false statements. However, this is difficult because Imogene did not
knowing make false statements.
It is assumed the City Council members are reasonable individuals. In being
so, it is also assumed they would have some idea if a church located across the
street from them were engaging in illegal activities such as animal sacrifices and

drug use. Imogene in her defense can argue she is protected by qualified privilege
and that given the City Council members are reasonable, her testimony was not the
reason the variance was denied. Furthermore, this civil suit could scare other
citizens from exercising their free speech for fear of being sued. For these reasons,
ABC Church would not have a good case.
3.
When pursuing a negligence case there are four elements that must be
addressed to prove negligence. Duty, breach, causal connection, and actual loss. In
the claim against the facility, three out of the four elements are easily proven. First
duty, the assisted living facility has the responsibility to reasonably avoid hard to all
of its patients. It is not reasonable that a dementia patient left the facility past
security and was able to walk several miles without being noticed. The estate can
claim that reasonable care was not provided to the patient. Second breach, there
was breach of duty because the dementia patient was able to walk out of the facility
unsupervised. Third causal connection, this is the element hardest to prove. The
estate will claim that there is causation because if not for the patient leaving the
facility undetected he would still be alive. The estate will argue that a reasonable
person can foresee that if a dementia patient escapes from an assisted living
facility, this patient is highly likely to suffer serious injury. On the contrary, the
facility will argue that actual causation does not exist. The facility did not kill the
patient. The train killed the patient. The facility will claim superseding causes are
responsible for the patients death. Having an escaped patient be killed by a train
could not be reasonable foreseen. Lastly actual loss, the dementia patient did loss
his life. While the majority of the elements favor the estate, the element of causal
connection does not. A claim against the facility would like have an unfavorable
outcome.
In the claim against the railroad, the estate would have a better chance of
winning the case. First duty, the estate can claim that the railroad company has the
responsibility to operate safely and maintain its trains. It is reasonable to assume
that maintaining the trains brakes are a basic necessity. One which the railroad
company failed to do in this case. Second breach, there is breach of duty because
the brakes malfunctioned. Third causal connection, the train conductor had plenty
of time to stop the train and avoid hitting the patient. A reasonable person would
agree that a train with malfunctioning brakes will result in serious injury or in this
case death. Fourth actual loss. The patient died because of the impact with the
train. The railroad company can try to defend itself by claiming the patient should
not have been on the railroad in the first place. However, this is a weak agreement.
A claim against the railroad would most likely have a favorable outcome.
4.
First agreement, Sabrina will claim that the phone conversation with the
university official was a verbal offer and her excitement when she responded with
Awesome expressed acceptance of the offer. The university can defend itself by
arguing that the terms of the offer were not reasonably certain or definite and that
Sabrina did not explicitly say yes to the offer. Second consideration, Sabrina will
claim the fellowship provides a large sum of the money to follow scholarly pursuits
that will benefit the university by brining attention to the research being conducted.
On the other hand, the university will argue that it does not get anything in return

for the fellowship, so it is not a contract. Third capacity, both parties are capable. It
is reasonable to assume that as a post-doc student, Sabrina understands how
fellowships work. Fourth legality, the agreement does not violate the law. It is legal
for a university to offer a student fellowship to engage in scholarly pursuits. In this
case form does not apply. Sabrina does not have a strong case against the
university. Specifically because it is hard to prove the terms of the contract were
defined when the verbal offer was extended.
Another option for Sabrina is a promissory estoppel. Sabrina could argue that
the phone call from the university informing her of the fellowship was a promise
that she would receive funds at a later date for scholarly pursuit. This promise
reasonably caused Sabrina to purchase supplies in preparation for the future
research. If she had not received that phone call, she would not have purchased
supplies. Not receiving the funds in the end is an injustice to Sabrina because she is
left without funds for her basic necessities such as food or rent. A judge may rule in
Sabrinas favor and request the university to compensate Sabrina for her economic
loss.