blr202 test 4b latest 2016

Question 1

Wk04.Tort.Trespass.First.

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

mc008-1.jpg

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

TRESPASS CASE QUESTION. This case was first filed in which court? Look at the citation.

a.

Federal trial court

b.

Michigan trial court

c.

Michigan appeals court

d.

United States trial court

1 points (Extra Credit)

Question 2

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. What is the legal issue raised?

a.

Did dust from the mine interfere with the plaintiffs use of their land?

b.

What law applies, trespass or nuisance?

c.

Did the trial judge make an error?

d.

Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.

1 points

Question 3

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. Which of the following is a fact used by court in its decision?

a.

Plaintiffs cannot recover damages under the law of trespass for dust and noise, only nuisance.

b.

Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.

c.

The dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean.

d.

Reversed and remanded to the trial court.

1 points

Question 4

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. Which of the following is a rule used by court in its decision?

a.

Plaintiffs cannot recover damages under the law of trespass for dust and noise, only nuisance.

b.

Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.

c.

The dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean.

d.

Reversed and remanded to the trial court.

1 points

Question 5

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. Which of the following is the court’s conclusion to the legal issue raised.

a.

“Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm'r

b.

Reversed and remanded to the trial court.

c.

Only the law of nuisance applies.

d.

Evidence presented at trial indicates that the emissions from the mining operations have consistently remained within applicable air-quality standards.

1 points

Question 6

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. Which courts in the judicial system usually answer the value issues?

a.

US Supreme Court

b.

Supreme

c.

All

d.

Trial

1 points

Question 7

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. According to the case, which of the following is difference between the law of trespass and the law of nuisance?

a.

Trespass is a tort but nuisance is not.

b.

A party can get damages for trespass but not nuisance.

c.

It is easier to recover damages under trespass than nuisance.

d.

A party can get damages for nuisance but not trespass.

1 points

Question 8

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. Not every case makes a piece of law but this case does. What is the law/rule made by this case that can be used by at least some courts in later, similar cases?

a.

“Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm'r.

b.

Evidence presented at trial indicates that the emissions from the mining operations have consistently remained within applicable air-quality standards.

c.

Only the law of nuisance applies to dust and noise invading land.

d.

Reversed and remanded to the trial court.

1 points (Extra Credit)

Question 9

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. In the United States, most laws come from where?

a.

The federal government.

b.

Different branches of a government and also administrative agencies of that government.

c.

The U.,S. Constitution

d.

The people.

1 points

Question 10

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. What is the next step in this lawsuit?

a.

The matter must be retried in the trail court only as a nuisance case.

b.

The original jury will be called back to decide if the plaintiffs can win under nuisance.

c.

The appeal court will decide if the plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

d.

The trial court judge will decide if the plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

1 points

Question 11

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. This case has been filed in a Michigan court of appeal. Could this matter be appealed further and where?

a.

The case cannot be further appealed.

b.

Either the Michigan or United States Supreme Court.

c.

The case would first have to be appealed to the Michigan State Supreme court and then it could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

d.

Only to the Michigan State Supreme Court.

1 points

Question 12

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. True or false. This case involves a matter of federal law.

a.

True

b.

False

1 points

Question 13

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. True or false. This court answered the value issue of, “Can plaintiffs’ recover from defendant?”

a.

False

b.

True

1 points

Question 14

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. The above passage is written by a judge but still follows the form of a legal argument as presented in the reading to this class, “Introduction to the Study of Law, Chapter 4, Legal Writing”.

What is found in Part 3 of the argument?

a.

Facts

b.

Argument

c.

Issue and law

d.

Analysis and conclusion

1 points

Question 15

Adam v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN, 237 Mich. App. 51; 602 N.W.2d 215 (1999) (Shortened and simplified from original. All internal citations removed.).

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in trespass for invasions of plaintiffs' property by intrusions of dust, noise, and vibrations. We conclude that the law of trespass in Michigan does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, and that the complaint should have been based on nuisance. Jury verdict is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court to determine if plaintiffs can recover under nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit seeking damages in both trespass and nuisance, complaining of dust, noise, and vibrations emanating from the Empire Mine. The Empire Mine is one of the nation's largest mines, producing eight million tons of iron ore annually. The mine operates twenty-four hours a day, year round.

According to the testimony, the dust from the mine is fine, gritty, oily, and difficult to clean. (Additional complaints eliminated to shorten reading).

In addition to concerns about the dust, many plaintiffs testified that the noise and vibrations from the blasts caused them to suffer shock, nervousness.(additional complaints omitted to shorten reading).

At the close of proofs, the trial court instructed the jury concerning both trespass and nuisance. The jury found that the defendants had committed trespass and awarded damages totaling $ 599,199 to the plaintiffs.Defendant appeals claiming that the law of trespass does not apply to this scenario only at most, the law of nuisance.

"'Trespass is an invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the exclusive possession of his land, while nuisance is an interference with his use and enjoyment of it.'" Historically, "every unauthorized intrusion upon the private premises of another is a trespass. Recovery for nuisance, however, traditionally required proof of actual and substantial injury. This makes it much harder to win a case of nuisance rather than trespass.

We agree with defendant, only the law of nuisance applies. Matter is remanded (sent back) to the trial court for retrial on the issue of whether or not a nuisance occurred.

Wk04.Tort.Trespass. Same passage as above. The above passage is written by a judge but still follows the form of a legal argument as presented in the reading to this class, “Introduction to the Study of Law, Chapter 4, Legal Writing”.

How may parts does this argument have? I am using the word “parts” as defined in the above reading.

a.

3

b.

2

c.

4

d.

1

1 points

Question 16

The TRIPS agreement covers computer programs.

True

False

1 points

Question 17

Each member country of the TRIPS agreement must include in its domestic laws intellectual property rights.

True

False

1 points

Question 18

To be patentable, an invention, discovery, or design must be novel, useful and not obvious in light of current technology.

True

False

1 points

Question 19

Choose the most correct answer. All choices are used and all are used only once.

One of the categories of intellectual property.

Example of tangible property.

Example of intangible property.

Example of real property

Example of a trade name

Example of some thing that would be patented.

Example of some thing that would be copyrighted.

Example of some thing that is a trade secret.

a.

Business good will

b.

Nike

c.

recipe for Coca-cola.

d.

Smallville episode

e.

a building

f.

diamond ring

g.

patent

h.

kryptonite and metal detector

1 points

Question 20

James buys a copy of the book Downpour. Later, after reading the book, James sells it to his sister. Under the first sale doctrine, James's sale of the book is

a.

legal only if the copyright has expired.

b.

illegal.

c.

legal.

d.

legal only if he sells it for less than he paid for it.

1 points

Question 21

Gas Up, Inc., designs, makes, and sells a fuel injection system that copies Hybrid Corporation's design without Hybrid's permission. This is most likely

a.

copyright infringement.

b.

trademark infringement.

c.

a theft of trade secrets.

d.

patent infringement.

1 points

Question 22

Hughes has designed a wall paper design.

What type of legal protection should he seek?

a.

Patent

b.

Trademark

c.

Copyright

d.

Trade secret

1 points

Question 23

The idea for "On Your Mark," a computer game featuring world-class athletic competition in extreme and unique contests, is protected by

a.

trade secrets law.

b.

trademark law.

c.

copyright law.

d.

patent law.

1 points

Question 24

Li'l Canine Company (LCC) uses a trademark that neither LCC nor anyone else has registered with the government. Under federal trademark law, LCC

a.

has committed trademark infringement.

b.

must put off registration until the mark is out of use for six months.

c.

cannot register a mark that has been used in commerce.

d.

can register the mark for protection.

1 points

Question 25

Cybersquatting occurs when a person repeatedly visits a business's website.

True

False

1 points

Question 26

A certification mark distinguishes products approved, or "certified," by the government.

True

False

1 points

Question 27

Jeannie runs a dude ranch called J Bar B Dude Ranch and has a Web site called www.jbarbduderanch.com. Ben starts another dude ranch and registers a Web site called www.jbarbduderanch.com. Ben is

a.

not doing anything illegal.

b.

cyberstalking.

c.

cybersquatting.

d.

counterfeiting.

1 points

Question 28

The need to protect intellectual property is recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

True

False

1 points

Question 29

Patent infringement is a tort.

True

False

1 points

Question 30

Caramello Chip & Cookie Corporation (4C) obtains, and gives its employees, a list of the customers of Sugar & Spice Sales, Inc. (3S). Under the law that applies to trade secrets, 4C's conduct is actionable provided

a.

4C uses the list.

b.

4C does not have 3S's permission to use the list.

c.

4C's conduct is intentional.

d.

consumers are confused.

1 points

Question 31

Riley invents a new valve to cap undersea oil spills. He names the valve "Great Catch." He also writes the installation manual to be included with each valve. Riley can obtain copyright protection for

a.

the valve.

b.

the installation manual.

c.

the "newness" of the valve.

d.

the name.

1 points

Question 32

Which of the following can not be registered as a trade name?

a.

Apples & Oranges, Investment Partnership

b.

Banana Republic Clothing, Inc.

c.

Strawberries

d.

Pear Blossom, Certified Public Accountant

1 points

Click Save and Submit to save and submit. Click Save All Answers to save all answers.