Reference no: EM133198237

Please cite to specific eText pages where you found support for your answers.

1. Baker and others entered a Walmart store shortly after 3:00 a.m. by cutting through the metal door with an acetylene torch. They had moved some of the merchandise in the store to the rear door, but the police arrived before the merchandise could be taken from the store. Baker was prosecuted for larceny. He raised the defense that he was not guilty of larceny because no merchandise had ever left the store. Is there enough intent and action for a crime? [Tennessee v. Baker, 751 S.W.2d 154 (Tenn. App.)]

2. Sergeant Kenneth Riley used videos of a fellow officer, not for training purposes, but for purposes of getting a fellow officer disciplined. He showed the videos to those within the department who would not have authorization to view them. Riley was indicted for unauthorized use of a computer and unauthorized access and disclosure of computer data. Riley moved to have the indictment dismissed. What should the court do with the case and why? [New Jersey v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252 (N.J. 2009)]
1. Christensen Shipyards built a 155-foot yacht for Tiger Woods at its Vancouver, Washington, facilities. It used Tiger's name and photographs relating to the building of the yacht in promotional materials for the shipyard without seeking his permission. Was this a right of publicity tort because Tiger could assert that his name and photos were used to attract attention to the shipyard to obtain commercial advantage? Did the shipyard have a First Amend-ment right to present the truthful facts regarding its building of the yacht and the owner's identity as pro-motional materials? Does the fact that the yacht was named Privacy have an impact on this case? Would it make a difference as to the outcome of this case if the contract for building the yacht had a clause prohibiting the use of Tiger's name or photo without his permission?

3. Juanita DeJesus was seriously injured when hit on the head by a foul ball at a minor league baseball game and sued the stadium operators for negligence and premises liability. The case progressed to the Indiana Supreme Court where the Indianapolis Indians urged the State Supreme Court to dispose of the premises liability and negligence claims in one fell swoop by adopting the so-called Baseball Rule, which provides that: a ballpark operator that provides screening behind home plate sufficient to meet ordinary demand for protected seating has fulfilled its duty with respect to screening and cannot be subjected to liability for injuries resulting to a spectator by an object leaving the playing field. Should the court adopt this clear and unambig-uous rule for the national pastime? Does the court have authority to make such a ruling? How would you decide her negligence claim? [South Shore Base-ball, LLC v. DeJesus, 11 N.E.3d 903 (Ind.)]