Richard owns a large track of land in Fort Collins, Colorado where he works on developing a saucer-shaped balloon as an alternative form of transportation, in which “people can pull out of their garage and hover above traffic” at about 50 or 100 feet (15 or 30 m).

One day his son, Falcon, decides to take the balloon for a ride while his mother and father are out playing “wife swap.” 

Unknown to Falcon, Michaele and Tareq had hiked on to Richard’s property a couple of days earlier and were presently camping on Richard’s property without his knowledge or consent. 

As fate would have it, after traveling approximately 1000 feet, the balloon and Falcon come crashing down on Michaele and Tareq.  Falcon is confused and vomits but is, by and large, unhurt.  Michaele and Tareq are not so lucky – they are severely injured in the crash.

Tareq and Michaele sue Richard to recover for their injuries.

You are the judge.  Do Tareq and Michaele prevail?

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

Marjorie was born in Haiti and moved to Florida in 1957 after a dictator, Dr. François Duvalier (“Papa Doc”), was named President of Haiti.

After she had lived in Florida for thirty-five years and had never been called upon to serve on jury duty, she decided to conduct a search of the county court records.

What she found was that a Haitian alien had never served on a jury in her county.  Moreover, nearly 10 percent of her county’s population consisted of Haitian aliens.

Marjorie sues her county alleging that she has been unconstitutionally excluded from the jury pool lists.

You are the judge.

Do you find for Marjorie?  Or for the county?  Why?

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

“Sexting” – the practice of sending semi-nude photographs, via cellular telephones or over the Internet -is widespread among American teenagers; studies show approximately 20% of Americans age 13-19 have done it.

School District officials confiscated several students’ cell phones, examined them and discovered photographs of “scantily clad, semi-nude and nude teenage girls.”  The School District reported that male students had been trading these images over their cell phones.

The School District turned the phones over to the District Attorney (“DA”) and he began a criminal investigation.

The DA stated publically that students who possess inappropriate images of minors could be prosecuted under state law for possessing or distributing child pornography.  The DA pointed out that these charges were felonies that could result in long prison terms and would give even juveniles a permanent record.  Furthermore, if found guilty of these crimes, minors would probably be subject to registration as sex offenders under State Registration of Sexual Offenders Act (“Meghan’s Law”), for at least ten years and have their names and pictures displayed on the state’s sex-offender website.

The DA sent letters to the parents of approximately twenty students, on whose cell phones the pictures were stored and to the girls shown in the photos.  He did not send the letter to those who had disseminated the images.

The letter informed the parents that their child had been “identified in a police investigation involving the possession and/dissemination of child pornography.”  The letter also promised that the charges would be dropped if the child successfully completed a six- to nine-month program focused on education and counseling.  The children and parents were invited to a meeting to discuss the issue.  The letter warned that “charges will be filed against those that do not participate or those that do not successfully complete the program.”

The DA held the meeting at the County Courthouse and reiterated his threat to prosecute unless the children submitted to probation, paid a $100 program fee and completed the program successfully.  When asked by a parent at the meeting why his daughter–who had been depicted in a photograph wearing a bathing suit–could be charged with child pornography, the DA replied that the girl was posed “provocatively,” which made her subject to the child pornography charge.  When the father of one girl asked DA who got to decide what “provocative” meant, the DA replied that he refused to argue the question and reminded the crowd that he could charge all the minors that night.  He had offered them a plea deal: “these are the rules.  If you don’t like them, too bad.”

The program is designed to teach the girls to “gain an understanding of how their actions were wrong,” “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society, both advantages and disadvantages,” and “identify nontraditional societal and job roles.”  Included in the “homework” for the program is an assignment including “what you did” and “why it was wrong.”  The program was initially purported to last six to nine months, but was eventually reduced to two hours per week over five weeks.

At the meeting, the DA asked all those present to sign an agreement assigning the minors to probation and to participation in the program.  Only one parent agreed to sign the form for her child.  The DA gave the parents forty-eight hours to agree to the offer or the girls would be charged.

All but three of the parents and girls eventually agreed to the conditions.

The remaining three girls and their parents refuse the “plea deal” and instead (with the help of the ACLU) file an action against the DA for violation of their constitutional rights.

The photographs of the three girls in question.

One photograph in question was approximately two years old, and showed Marissa and Grace from the waist up, each wearing a white, opaque bra.  Marissa was speaking on the phone and Grace using her hand to make the peace sign.  The girls were thirteen years old at the time the picture was taken.  The DA claimed that this image met the definition of child pornography because the girls were posed “provocatively.” 

Another photograph of a girl named Nancy was more than a year old and showed Nancy wrapped in a white, opaque towel.  The towel was wrapped around her body, just below her breasts.  It looked as if she had just emerged from the shower.

Neither of these two photographs depicted any sexual activity.  Neither showed the girls’ genitalia or pubic area.  The DA said the pictures were among those on the confiscated cell phones, but he would not divulge who owned the phones.  The minors insist that they did not disseminate the photographs to anyone else, but that another person sent those pictures “to a large group of people” without their permission.

The lawsuit against the DA.

Count I alleges retaliation in violation of girls’ First Amendment right to free expression.  The girls contend that the photographs in question are not in violation of any obscenity law and are thus expression protected by the First Amendment.  The DA therefore threatens charges against them without a legitimate basis in an attempt to force the girls to abandon their constitutional rights and submit to the “re-education program,” probation and drug testing.

Count II alleges retaliation in violation of the girls’ First Amendment right to be free from compelled expression.  The program in which the girls would be compelled to participate requires them to write a paper about “how their actions were wrong.”  Since girls did not violate any law, this requirement is compelled speech.

Count III, brought by the girls’ parents, alleges retaliation against the parents for exercising their substantive due process right as parents to direct their children’s upbringing.  Plaintiffs allege that the DA’s attempt to force their children to attend the class and participate in programs designed to let them “gain an understanding of how their actions were wrong,” “gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society,” and “identify non-traditional societal and job roles” infringes on their right to control the upbringing of their children.

You are the judge.  How do you rule on the lawsuit against the DA?

Answer below in comments later today.

Charlestown is a small coastal community whose only noteworthy industry is tourism and its biggest tourist attraction is the annual World One Music Festival for two weeks in July.  During the day revelers shop for arts and crafts, World One memorabilia and eat various delicacies from around the world at the small shops and booths that line Charlestown’s ten-block El Cerrito Street.  From 4 pm to 12 midnight, musicians perform on stages set up at each end of El Cerrito Street.

During the Music Festival, pursuant to a local ordinance, no motorized vehicles are permitted on the ten-block section of El Cerrito Street.

Karl R., the owner of a small restaurant on El Cerrito Street opens the restaurant at 6:00 am for breakfast even though business is slow at that hour during the Music Festival.  One day during the festival a father and son, George Sr. and George Jr., have breakfast at the restaurant.  After eating, while George Sr. paid the bill, George Jr. walked out onto El Cerrito Street to enjoy the morning sun.

Just at that moment 14-year-old Corey M. came around the corner onto El Cerrito Street riding a moped while on his morning paper route.  The moped was only traveling at a speed of 15 mph and Corey would have been able to stop in time if his moped was not out of brake fluid.  (Corey had owned the moped for two years but had never bothered to check the brakes.)

The brakes failed and Corey hit George Jr. who was standing on El Cerrito Street.  George Jr.’s head hit the concrete curbing as he fell, knocking him unconscious.

Corey raced into the restaurant and, upon hearing Corey’s story, George Sr., who was still paying the bill, begged Karl R. to permit him to use the telephone to call an ambulance.  Karl R. refused.  Corey ran to find another open business and an ambulance arrived in fifteen minutes.  George Jr.’s physician states that the delay in treatment allowed a blood clot to form which seriously complicated George Jr.’s condition.

You are the judge.  If George Jr. sues Karl R., does Karl R. have a defense?

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

Lauren recently quit her boring-dead-end-job in the city and, although she had no experience in the hospitality industry, bought a large Colonial house near the ocean and converted it into a Bed & Breakfast (“B&B”).

Subsequently, Lauren signed a one-year agreement with Laundry Company to provide “daily service at $750 a week.”  However, after Laundry Company did not pick up B&B’s laundry on the first two Sundays and after it indicated that it would never do so, Lauren canceled the agreement.

Laundry Company sued Lauren for breach of contract.

Lauren claims that during negotiations with Laundry Company, she told them that she needed and expected laundry service seven days a week.

At the trial, however, uncontroverted evidence was introduced to show that in the commercial laundry business, “daily service” did not include service on Sundays.

You are the judge.  Will Lauren or Laundry Company prevail?  Why?

Answer below in comments later today.