Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Legal Cases Discussion Paper
Copyright Infringement. Savant Homes, Inc., is a custom home designer and builder. Using what it called the Anders Plan, Savant built a model house in Windsor, Colorado. This was a ranch house with two bedrooms on one side and a master suite on the other, separated by a combined family room, dining room, and kitchen. Ron and Tammie Wagner toured the Savant house. The same month, the Wagner’s hired builder Douglas Collins and his firm, Douglas Consulting, to build a house for them. After it was built, Savant filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against Collins for copyright infringement, alleging that the builder had copied the Anders Plan in the design and construction of the Wagner house. Collins showed that the Anders Plan consisted of standard elements and standard arrangements of elements. In these circumstances, has infringement occurred? Explain. [Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2016)] (See Copyrights.)
Social Media. Irvin Smith was charged in a Georgia state court with burglary and theft. Before the trial, during the selection of the jury, the state prosecutor asked the prospective jurors whether they knew Smith. No one responded affirmatively. Jurors were chosen and sworn in, without objection. After the trial, during deliberations, the jurors indicated to the court that they were deadlocked. The court charged them to try again. Meanwhile, the prosecutor learned that “Juror 4” appeared as a friend on the defendant’s Facebook page and filed a motion to dismiss her. The court replaced Juror 4 with an alternate. Was this an appropriate action, or was it an “abuse of discretion”? Should the court have admitted evidence that Facebook friends do not always actually know each other? Discuss. [Smith v. State of Georgia, 335 Wagner’s. 497, 782 S.E.2d 305 (2016)] (See social media.)
Defenses to Criminal Liability. George Castro told Ambrosio Medrano that a bribe to a certain corrupt Los Angeles County official would buy a contract with the county hospitals. To share in the deal, Medrano recruited Gustavo Bergstrom. In turn, Bergstrom contacted his friend James Batra, the owner of Sav–Rx, which provides prescription benefit management services. Batra was asked to pay a “finder’s fee” to Castro. He did not pay, even after frequent e-mails and calls with deadlines and ultimatums delivered over a period of months. Eventually, Batra wrote Castro a Sav–Rx check for $6,500, saying that it was to help his friend Bergstrom. Castro was an FBI agent, and the county official and contract were fictional. Batra was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery. At trial, the government conceded that Batra was not predisposed to commit the crime. Could he be absolved of the charge on a defense of entrapment? Explain. [United States v. Batra, 776 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2015)] (See Defenses to Criminal Liability.)
Legal Cases Discussion Paper
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality
95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support
91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology
58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score
50-85% |
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality
0-45% |
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Legal Cases Discussion Paper |
Legal Cases Discussion Paper