Reference no: EM13147937
Identify what is wrong (if anything) with the following citations. For your information, we have indicated the number of errors for each citation.
Series 1
1. Brownstein v. Morris, 203 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1990). [1 error]
2. The applicable standard is gross negligence. Smith v. Jones, 918 S.W. 2d 222, 224 (Mo. 1997) [1 error]
3. The evidentiary standard is one of gross negligence. Missouri Rev. Stat. §232.12 (1986); See Smith v. Jones, 218 S.W.3d 222, 224 (Mo. 2005) Huffy v. Carmichael, 846 S.W.2d 333, 345 (Mo. 1987). [4 errors]
4. The Illinois Dog Bite Statute, 510 Ill. Comp. Stats. Section 5/16 (Smith Hurd 1996); defines a dog-owner's liability for a dog bite. [3 errors]
5. Dog bite liability requires a lack of provocation, See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 123 (1996); Norton v. Cramden, 354 Ky. 268, 270 (1946); Eckert v. Triesberger, 210 Ky. App. Rptr. 207 (Ky. App. 1965), but provocation can be offset if the dog is a hunting dog, Eckert, Id., or a dog trained to kill. Norton, Id. [8 errors]
6. The Erie doctrine confuses the issue of choice of law. Mast v. John, 75 Iowa 23, 24 (1988); seealsoHill v. Willy, 866 P.2nd 433, 444 (OK. 1978 (discussing fact that Erie confuses most issues of conflict of laws, including forum selection.). [4 errors]
Series 3
1. What, if anything, is wrong with each of the following citations:
Dog v. Cat, 17 F.Supp.2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001)
Dog v. Cat, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001)
Dog v. Cat, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14 (N.D. Illinois 2001)
Dog v. Cat, 17 F.Supp. 2d 14 (N.D. Ill. E.D. 2001)
Dog v. Cat, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
2. What, if anything, is wrong each of the following short form citations:
Long form: Dog v. Cat, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14 (W.D. Tenn. 2003)
Dog v. Cat, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14
Dog v. Cat, 17 F. Supp. 2d at 18
Dog, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14 at 18
Dog, 17 F. Supp. 2d 14, 18
Dog, 17 F. Supp. 2d at 18
Id.
Id. at 18
3. What, if anything, is wrong with each of the following citations:
Dog v. Cat, 917 F. 2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001) (Justice Cooper)
Dog v. Cat, 917 F. 2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001) (Judge Cooper)
Dog v. Cat, 917 F.2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001) (Judge Cooper)
Dog v. Cat, 917 F.2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001) (Hon. Cooper)
Dog v. Cat, 917 F.2d 14 (7th Cir. 2001) (Cooper, J.)
4. What, if anything, is wrong with each of the following citations:
Cop v. Robber 17 Cal.2d 14 (Cal. 2001)
Cop v. Robber17 Cal.2d 14 (Cal. 2001)
Cop v. Robber,17 Cal.2d 14 (Cal. 2001)
Cop v. Robber,17 Cal.2d 14 (Cal. 2001)
Cop v. Robber,17 Cal.2d 14 (2001)
5. What, if anything, is wrong with each of the following citations:
Cop v. Robber 88 S. Ct. 414 (U.S. 1988)
Cop v. Robber 88 S. Ct. 414 (1988)
Cop v. Robber, 88 S. Ct. 414 (1988)
Cop v. Robber, 88 S.Ct. 414 (1988)
Cop v. Robber,525 U.S. 875 (1988)