Anyone know how to Shepardize?

[NaKoRuRu]

I am so lost! I'm taking a Law's class at school and we have to Shepardize a case. But I have nooooooo idea how to do that. I know what the point of Shepardizing is but how do I do it? We didn't even go over this at school. Just got a handout with the assignment and I have to give a presentation tomorrow. Ugh! Someone help? My case is Martinez v Bank of America (dog bite case). I'll probably just bs my way... through this assignment. SInce its the last week of school....

[mario]

cite it for me, i will do it.


(what class are you taking and where?)

[mario]

meh...i figure it's a california case since you're probably there. . . so here's what i found.

I figure you probably don't know how to work your way through the stuff below, so ask a more specific question and i will answer it for you.



Unrestricted Shepard's Summary

No subsequent appellate history.

Citing References:
Positive treatment is indicated
Positive Analyses:
Followed (1)
Neutral Analyses:
Quest. Precedent (1)
Other Sources:
Treatises (11), Court Documents (19)


Followed by:
Stone v. Center Trust Retail Properties, Inc., 146 Cal. App. 4th 1435, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 81, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Service 883, 2007 D.A.R. 1101 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007)

Cited in questionable precedent at:
White v. Contreras, 95 Cal. App. 4th 137, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 299, 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 157, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 303, 2002 D.A.R. 397 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002)

[NaKoRuRu]

WoW, thanks Mario... I'm not exactly 100% sure but I think 82 Cal. App. 4th 883; 98 Cal Rptr.2d 576 [Aug 2000] is the citations. And yea you are correct it is a California case. Also, I think my professor just wants to know if the case/the rules/laws are still valid.

Forgot to answer your other questions. I'm taking LAWS-310 (its an intro class) at DeVry University... yea yea I know... but its mandatory class and I think its good. At least I know a little about how law works and stuff... Oh BTW I already F.R.A.C. the case which is what he also wanted...

[mario]

well, yes, it's a california case since it appears in the Cal Appellate Reporter (Cal. App. 4th).

to answer the question, yes, it's still good law (no negative analyses and the court's holding has been followed in one subsequent case).

the rest of the stuff:
"no subsequent appellate history" means that this was the 1st (and only) appeal of the case (doesn't really mean a whole lot in this context)

neutral:
doesn't really mean much. . . a questionable case followed this holding. . . but that does NOT affect the case you are concerned with.

Other Sources:
these are other sources that felt compelled to cite this case. . . the more sources that cite this case (positively), the more credibility it lends to the court's holding.

BTW:
shephard's is a citator. . . it's available in book form (archaic) at any decent law library. . . online, it's available in lexis-nexis (popular website for lawyers to look up cases, etc). . . it's used to determine the direct history of the case (other cases involving the parties) and the indirect history of the case (other cases following or overruling the holding in the case).

PS: the 'holding' is the rule of law issued by the court.


PSS: i'm in law school, if you can't tell.

[NaKoRuRu]

well, yes, it's a california case since it appears in the Cal Appellate Reporter (Cal. App. 4th).

to answer the question, yes, it's still good law (no negative analyses and the court's holding has been followed in one subsequent case).

the rest of the stuff:
"no subsequent appellate history" means that this was the 1st (and only) appeal of the case (doesn't really mean a whole lot in this context)

neutral:
doesn't really mean much. . . a questionable case followed this holding. . . but that does NOT affect the case you are concerned with.

Other Sources:
these are other sources that felt compelled to cite this case. . . the more sources that cite this case (positively), the more credibility it lends to the court's holding.

BTW:
shephard's is a citator. . . it's available in book form (archaic) at any decent law library. . . online, it's available in lexis-nexis (popular website for lawyers to look up cases, etc). . . it's used to determine the direct history of the case (other cases involving the parties) and the indirect history of the case (other cases following or overruling the holding in the case).

PS: the 'holding' is the rule of law issued by the court.


PSS: i'm in law school, if you can't tell.

Thanks again Mario, and yea I knew you were in Law school. I actually went to the La Verne University Law School Law Library as a field trip for this class last week. I did look up the case using the Cal App. Which was fun, well not fun fun but you know what I mean. And thanks I think I can use what you said in your last post and make it into my own paragraph saying how it is good law. w00t. now I can just finish this up and forget about it untill 9am tomorrow :tup::tup:

[mario]

Thanks again Mario, and yea I knew you were in Law school. I actually went to the La Verne University Law School Law Library as a field trip for this class last week. I did look up the case using the Cal App. Which was fun, well not fun fun but you know what I mean. And thanks I think I can use what you said in your last post and make it into my own paragraph saying how it is good law. w00t. now I can just finish this up and forget about it untill 9am tomorrow :tup::tup:

no prob.:tup: any more q's i'd be glad to answer to the best of my abilities.


PS:
"Judgment affirmed; because defendant did not have actual knowledge of the dangerous conditions of the property and did not have possession or control of the property, defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs." (from lexis site)

pretty common result in a tort case like this one. . . "you can't fix what you don't know doesn't exist"

[NaKoRuRu]

no prob.:tup: any more q's i'd be glad to answer to the best of my abilities.


PS:
"Judgment affirmed; because defendant did not have actual knowledge of the dangerous conditions of the property and did not have possession or control of the property, defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs." (from lexis site)

pretty common result in a tort case like this one. . . "you can't fix what you don't know doesn't exist"
exactly... can't fix what you don't know about... not only that but they didn't even have posession of the property. they should have sued the Lindsey's...

[mario]

exactly... can't fix what you don't know about... not only that but they didn't even have posession of the property. they should have sued the Lindsey's...

no sense in suing someone who can't pay. . . you want to sue companies, etc b/c a judgment against a private person generally will not yield any $$$ (ie if you got sued for $150k and you lost, you prob couldn't pay, right?--i know i can't.)

[FunkTron]

mario.........go to bed........it's late..........and you're not even talking to me. :)

[NaKoRuRu]

no sense in suing someone who can't pay. . . you want to sue companies, etc b/c a judgment against a private person generally will not yield any $$$ (ie if you got sued for $150k and you lost, you prob couldn't pay, right?--i know i can't.)

Well I mean that makes sense... but as the kids parents (whos kid died because of the neighbors dog) i would at least want some kind of justice... what to do??

[mario]

mario.........go to bed........it's late..........and you're not even talking to me. :)

well, i kinda fell asleep on top of my book @ the lib before this post. . . woke up and saw it, studied. woke up today around noon, est.

[mario]

Well I mean that makes sense... but as the kids parents (whos kid died because of the neighbors dog) i would at least want some kind of justice... what to do??

a civil judgment isn't worth the paper its printed on. . . justice and judgments are separate and (probably) mutually-exclusive. . . sad truth.

what to do? get a really, really good lawyer, sue BofA and hope that in order to get this to go away (ie not have to pay their lawyers) they throw a little cash at you and hope you go away. . . but that's a risky strategy.

[PhätTony]

2 Words...mechanics Lean

[mario]

2 Words...mechanics Lean

lien. . .

and it won't do much here.

[NaKoRuRu]

Damn, now I feel sorry for the parents...

[PhätTony]

no sense in suing someone who can't pay. . . you want to sue companies, etc b/c a judgment against a private person generally will not yield any $$$ (ie if you got sued for $150k and you lost, you prob couldn't pay, right?--i know i can't.)

if you have patience and if they have property and or assets. then yes, a lien (thanks) is appropriate. there's always worth suing for 'bus law 101'

My mistake on the mechanics lean...that would be for something else.