Assignment 4 - Cases - 2018

Legal Research and Writing II – Spring 2018
Homework – Cases
Federal Case Law

1. Find the opinion on page 310 of volume 558 of the United States Reports.
a. Cite the opinion in Bluebook form using whichever source you turned to in order to
find this opinion.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
b. What is the docket number?

No. 08–205
c. What is the date of decision?
January 21, 2010
d. What is the name of the justice who delivered the opinion of the court?
Justice Kennedy
e. When looking at this case in Westlaw, what is the first listed headnote’s topic and key
number?
Federal Courts, 170B
f. If the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals cited this U.S. Supreme Court case for the topic
covered by the first headnote, provide a citation to such a Texas case.
Ex parte James W. Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.Crim.App.2010).
Texas Case Law
2. Find the 1972 Texas Supreme Court case that describes that summary judgment provides a
means to eliminate “patently unmeritorious claims.” Provide a pinpoint Bluebook citation for
that case that includes the page number where this language is found.
Swilley v. Hughes, 488 S.W.2d 64, 68 (1972).
Digest (Topics and Key Numbers)

You will remain in the same topic and key number for Question #3 and its subparts.
3. Look up Topic 28 – Animals in the West Key Number system.
a. Find key number 27 under Animals. What is the title of this key number?
Hire and use
b. Staying in key number 27 of Animals, set up the jurisdiction to only show Texas state
cases. How many case headnotes remain after you have filtered to this jurisdiction?
13
c. Changing your jurisdiction settings to add United States Supreme Court cases and U.S.
Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals cases, how many case headnotes are provided?
13
d. Once again changing the jurisdiction settings for to All States, but excluding Federal,
how many case headnotes are listed?
280
e. How many of the case headnotes you found are from The District Court of Appeals for
the Fourth District of Texas?
3
Use KeyCite in Westlaw to answer Question #4 and its subparts.

4. Look up In re Estate of Sneed, 152 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App. 2004).
a. What color is the Key Cite status flag associated with this case and what does that flag
indicate?
Yellow. Negative Treatment
b. Does this case have any negative direct history?
There is no negative direct history.
c. Cite the case that is distinguished from In re Estate of Sneed.
In re Estate of Reno, 443 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. App—Texarkana 2009).
Shepard’s: Use Shepard’s in Lexis Advance to answer Question #5 and its subparts.
5. Look up Mackie v. McKenzie, 900 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. App. 1995).
a. What color is the Shepard’s signal indicator at the top of the opinion next to the case
name, and what does that indicator tell a researcher?
Yellow. Caution: Possible negative treatment
b. Does this case have any negative subsequent appellate history?
No
c. Click on the citing decisions associated with Mackie. Cite the case Mackie is
“criticized by.” Is the case you cited a published opinion?
Cost Recovery Servs. v. Price Waterhouse, 6830, 2000 WL 1508812 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2000).
Yes, an opinion was published.
Use the following fact pattern for Question #6 and its subparts. You may use your
preferred database.
6. Caselaw Research:
As you are no doubt aware, we represent Bob “Bubba” Hicklin (founder and CEO of Black Sky
Coal) for most of his legal needs. One of Mr. Hicklin’s hobbies is breeding and training Bluetick
Coonhounds. Seventeen years ago, he purchased a large tract of land along the Tennessee-North
Carolina border which he has used since then as his dogs’ breeding/training ground.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hicklin did not survey his lands correctly (he did it himself, another hobby),
and the rather large kennel he built at great cost actually lies on lands owned by the Cherokee
Nation of North Carolina.
The Cherokee have now initiated a legal action against Hicklin for the land and the kennel in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. While the Cherokee Nation does
appear to hold title to the land in question, I would like to be able to use the doctrine of adverse
possession as a defense. However, I’m not sure if I can use North Carolina’s adverse possession
laws against the Cherokee as tribal lands fall at least partially under federal jurisdiction. I need
you to:
a. Find me a case from the past 30 years or so (we don’t want anything decided before
the Indian Civil Rights Movement in the 70s), preferably binding over the Western
District of North Carolina, which answers whether or not a state adverse possession
defense can be used against Indian lands.
There were two cases of interest for this research problem. The first is Catawba
Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. State of S.C., and the second is the Supreme Court
case, Oneida County, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State.
b. Assuming that you find a relevant case, does it tip you off to any other topics/key
numbers that we might want to look at that pertain specifically to Indians and land
title? (Keep in mind that nobody at the firm has an expertise in Indian law, so basic
definitions might be helpful.) What topics and key numbers will be most useful to us?
Yes, and the following topics and key numbers may be useful for further research:
Indians 209, real property 209IV, adverse poss. 201, title and rights to Indian lands in
general 209k151, adv. poss. 209k201.
c. Applying relevant authorities to our facts, are we ultimately likely to succeed? Why
or why not?
No, it is unlikely that we will win this suit. Case law suggests at “except where
Congress provides otherwise, claims based on Indian title are not subject to state law
defenses such as statutes of limitations, adverse possession or laches.” Therefore, any
attempt to assert an adverse possession claim to Indian lands would be unlikely to
succeed.
Thanks,
Ms. Partner

Assignment 4 - Cases - 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment 4 - Cases - 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Research and Writing II – Spring 2018

Federal Case Law

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

b. What is the docket number?

Ex parte James W. Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.Crim.App.2010).

Texas Case Law

Swilley v. Hughes, 488 S.W.2d 64, 68 (1972).

Digest (Topics and Key Numbers)

Use KeyCite in Westlaw to answer Question #4 and its subparts.

You might also like