Top Law Schools

I still don't fully understand what it means to spot issues. What are issues?

Can someone provide an example of this?

Jack's mother lives in New York, he visits her weekly to take care of her. Jack is 23 years old and a graduate of the University of Connecticut, where he is still registered to vote, although he currently lives in an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts. One week, while Jack is driving through Connecticut to go visit his mother, he gets in a car accident with a woman from Bridgeport, and she suffers $100,000 in damages and sues.


spot the issue, I kept it clean, there is just one. this is the way it works, they give you facts, and your job is to know what the underlying legal question is.

I throw a baseball at you. I miss you and the ball hits your mother, standing behind you. Does this satisfy the intent element for assault?

Note that there are multiple types of "issue" here. 1. was there intent (factual issue). 2. does this particular jurisdiction apply transferred intent (legal issue)? 3. On an exam, you won't know whether the court applies transferred intent or not (unless the exam instructions make it clear), so should the court apply transferred intent or not (policy issue)?

Now that I think of it, most, if not all, jurisdictions use transferred intent for assault. So this isn't the best example. However, you get my point.

Awesome...thanks a lot. But I don't see the issue in the first example (Cupidity). Does it have something to do with jurisdiction?

Geist13 wrote:I throw a baseball at you. I miss you and the ball hits your mother, standing behind you. Does this satisfy the intent element for assault?

Note that there are multiple types of "issue" here. 1. was there intent (factual issue). 2. does this particular jurisdiction apply transferred intent (legal issue)? 3. On an exam, you won't know whether the court applies transferred intent or not (unless the exam instructions make it clear), so should the court apply transferred intent or not (policy issue)?

Now that I think of it, most, if not all, jurisdictions use transferred intent for assault. So this isn't the best example. However, you get my point.

although an important initial question is whether this is a torts or crim exam.

nodummy wrote:Awesome...thanks a lot. But I don't see the issue in the first example. Does it have something to do with jurisdiction?

A dollar amount is generally a sign that you should evaluate whether there is diversity jurisdiction. You are going to want to discuss citizenship, and whether or not Jack is a citizen of Connecticut, because if he is, there is no diversity.

nodummy wrote:Awesome...thanks a lot. But I don't see the issue in the first example. Does it have something to do with jurisdiction?

You'd see the issues if you had gotten to diversity jurisdiction in civ pro. This highlights the importance of actually knowing the law in order to see the issues.

Cupidity wrote:

nodummy wrote:Awesome...thanks a lot. But I don't see the issue in the first example. Does it have something to do with jurisdiction?

A dollar amount is generally a sign that you should evaluate whether there is diversity jurisdiction. You are going to want to discuss citizenship, and whether or not Jack is a citizen of Connecticut, because if he is, there is no diversity.

Perfect. Thanks for this